Bonfire of the Vanities

Vignettes in a pastor's life

2012-02-14T12:37:00.002-05:00

Here are some events that arise in my ministry that you may find interesting:

> Several weeks ago I got an email from a parishioner--a relative had held back from becoming Catholic because of a marriage issue; he was now dying and wondered what could be done. I wrote back saying I'd be eager to talk to him, I had hope we could solve the problem.

> I met with the man. He was at the end of his tether. His marriage could be regularized, if time allowed (since he was never baptized, his prior marriage was not sacramental. A sacramental baptism cannot be dissolved, but if it wasn't valid in the first place, that fact can be ascertained and declared--i.e., a decree of nullity. But a natural--non-sacramental--marriage can be dissolved by the authority of the Church, if it has already ended); but in his case, no time. But if the spouses are living as brother and sister...no issue. I was able to baptize him, confirm him, give him his first communion, and the anointing of the sick, all in his bed.

> Not many days later, he went to his reward--as I said at his funeral Mass yesterday, to his second and eternal communion.

> I just got a call a bit ago about an upcoming parish event. The event usually takes place in the gym; however, since last year, we installed a high-grade wood floor, and we naturally don't want to damage it. So the subject has been on the rumor mill for some time--that I wasn't going to allow it. (Not true.) Instead, my proposal was, first: do we still want the event there or would it work elsewhere? If the latter, we will get a tarp to put down, as others do. Over the past few weeks, I've had people ask me about it, and I kept saying, no worries, once the person in charge contacts me, we'll work it out. That call came today, and we're working it out. I could have called myself; however the person in charge changes from year to year.

> Yesterday, after the funeral Mass, I returned home to work on notes for a couple of high school classes I'll be teaching this week at Lehman Catholic High School in Sidney. My friend, the pastor of Holy Angels in Sidney, is leading the class but couldn't be there today through Thursday, so I'm the substitute teacher. We're going to talk about contraception and related issues. I spent much of yesterday creating a "powerpoint"--something I don't do very often. I plan on giving the kids permission to laugh at my unartful slides--assuming the technology works. If not, I printed out the slides and I will take the Catechism, and another handout. Lesson: never assume your technology will work!

> Sunday night, I was headed over to St. Boniface to rub shoulders for a bit with the youth group, at their "Barbeque in the Snow" event. While there, I remembered I wanted to borrow the black vestment--from that parish's sacristy--for the funeral the next day. I went to the sacristy door--and my key broke off in the lock! Thankfully, I was able to fish out the broken end.

Now what do I do? Well, I knew someone in the chapel would be able to help me, so I went into the chapel. When I walked in, a parishioner was there, talking to the folks praying there. He had something on his mind and was very happy to see me: "I need to talk to you Father!" I said no problem and we walked into the sacristy where we could talk privately, and the folks in the chapel could pray. Of course I'll say nothing more about it--but note this fact: had my key not broken off, I would have had no reason to step into the chapel at the moment.

> I'm currently exchanging emails with a committee of parishioners who are assisting me on a project. We're going to have some difficulties coming up with a day and time to meet. Even exchanging emails takes a fair amount of time--in case you wonder (a) what father does all day and (b) why doesn't father get things done faster, and (c) why doesn't father get more input from parishioners.

> Oh, and I just remembered I have to finish our annual handout for opportunities for Lent--as Ash Wednesday is about 8 days away. I better get moving...

'Be not afraid!' (Sunday homily--action on Obama mandate)

2012-02-11T13:30:00.003-05:00

The Scriptures give us images of infection--
skin disease, and the fear that it will spread.
But there’s another kind of infection--the good kind.

Notice what St. Paul said: whatever you do, do it for God’s glory.

And notice what happened when our Lord healed the man with leprosy:
the news spread--like an infection!

Looking at the big picture, the state of our society:
What kind of infections are spreading?

The good news is, the Gospel is spreading.
Christianity is growing worldwide.

The bad news is that a lot of false gospels are spreading too--
and they have powerful forces behind them.

Take a look at the events of the past few weeks.

We were stunned to learn our government
was going to force us to act against our own faith.

As you know, the bishops spoke as one, saying
“we cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law.”

A tide of protest began to spread--
so much so that the President had to acknowledge it.

So on Friday, he offered what he called an “accommodation.”

I realize a lot of the media--and some prominent Catholics--
have quickly said this solves the problem.

But let’s be clear--Christ did not give the New York Times
authority to teach in his name;
he gave that responsibility to Peter and the Apostles,
and to those who would come after them: our bishops.

And if ever there was a time when we need to be clear
on who speaks for the Church of Jesus Christ, now is that time!

So let’s hear what Archbishop Dolan of New York--
who is the president of the U.S. bishops conference--
had to say on this.

He said this so-called solution, while a first step,
as it is, it is “unacceptable.”

Why? Because the government is still forcing everyone
to go along with contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs,
as part of health care.
Putting the mandate on the insurance companies
doesn’t really change much.

Here’s something not everyone realizes:
a lot of organizations, including many of our Catholic organizations,
act as their own insurance company.

It’s kind of shell game--as someone said,
it’s like a teenager saying, I didn’t buy the beer--
I got my big brother to buy it!

Archbishop Dolan also points out that the threat
is still hanging over our heads:
the power of a bureaucrat to sweep away our rights
with the stroke of a pen.

So our bishops are continuing to say we need legislation
that will take that weapon out of the government’s hands.
That’s why there are postcards in your pews today.
I’m going to come back to those in a moment.

At the outset, I said the Scriptures show us the power of infection--
both the bad kind, and the good kind.

And we’re seeing it.
Fifty years ago, Pope Paul VI issued a letter, Humanae Vitae,
in which he addressed the subject of using
artificial methods of regulating birth.

And in that letter, he reiterated the Church’s constant teaching
that by God’s design, love, procreation, marriage and family
are all bound together.

We have means--such as Natural Family Planning--that respect this design.
But artificial means set aside God’s design--and we don’t get to do that.

Because many expected he would change the teaching,
his letter was ridiculed--even by many Catholics.

For various reasons, his words have been widely ignored.

So now, we have the humiliation of the President himself saying,
look the Catholics themselves don’t believe it.

For 50 years, people have vigorously spread the promise of contraception.

Meanwhile, a lot of bishops, a lot of priests, and a lot of Catholics,
have either gone along, or for whatever reason, chose not to say much.

So…I’m talking about it now.

In your bulletin you’ll see a handout like this.
There are a couple of talks this week--
one for teens and one for adults--that will talk about this.

I’m addressing the subject briefly; these talks will go into depth.
Please take advantage of them.

When Pope Paul VI issued his teaching 50 years ago,
he made some predictions. Let’s see what happened.

He said, first, that if these artificial means were to spread,
they would greatly lower the moral climate.

Who would say that the moral climate today is not much worse?

The pope said that this would damage marriages.

Can anyone claim that marriages
are in better shape today than 50 years ago?

In fact, those who promoted contraception claimed it would help marriages;
and they still claim it prevents abortions.

The facts all go the other way.
Divorce has skyrocketed;
Families are broken; more children than ever grow up without both parents;
birth control is freely available,
and we have a million abortions a year.

The promises were false. And yet, they’ve been spread far and wide.

And then Pope Paul said this:

Careful consideration should be given to the danger
of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities
who care little for the precepts of the moral law…

Who will prevent public authorities from favoring
those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective?
Should they regard this as necessary,
they may even impose their use on everyone.

And now we have lived to see that prediction fulfilled.

So we are left with a very uncomfortable fact:
Those who believe in this false hope
have done a far better job of spreading their message,
than we have ours.

So while we have to deal with the threat at hand from our government,
we might also do some soul-searching
about how well we’ve spread the message of our faith.

Is this uncomfortable? Does this teaching demand sacrifice?
Do some wish I’d offer something more pleasant?
Of course!

He said, “take up your cross.”

In every age, in every society,
members of the Church have faced a confrontation
between the Gospel of the Cross, and all the counterfeits.

We’ve been around 2,000 years.
This is hardly the first time
we’ve faced government trying to push us around and it won’t be last.

He told us this would happen--why are we surprised?

As I said, there are three postcards,
one for Speaker Boehner, one for Senator Brown,
and one for Senator Portman.
They are three different colors so you can easily tell them apart.

If you haven’t already, please take one of each for yourself and fill it out.
Anyone of any age can sign one, it’s our right to speak out.

In a moment, the ushers will come and collect them--
we are going to have volunteers come next week
and put postage on them and mail them.

If you want to help with that, call the office Monday.

Sending three postcards costs about a dollar.
If you can afford to contribute a dollar, great, put it in with the postcards.
But even if you can’t, still put in your postcards;
someone else I’m sure will throw in some extra.

The ushers will come forward now and begin collecting the postcards.

In all of this, I admit I’ve been angry.
I think we have good reason to be angry.
I’ve been shocked and broken hearted--
To have the country we all love so much to go down this road.

And I think a lot of us are tempted to despair.
A lot are saying, we can’t stop it, everything just gets worse.

Don’t give into that temptation!
This is when we need fortitude--courage.
To quote one of our revolutionary heroes:
“These are the times that try men’s souls.”

Fortitude! That is a gift of the Holy Spirit through baptism.
Christ chose us, in this time, to face this challenge.
He trusts that we will be equal to it.
And He promises, with his own blood as proof, that he stands with us.

As our beloved Pope John Paul said so often:
“Be not afraid!”

Bishops term Obama offer a first step--but not enough

2012-02-10T14:46:00.001-05:00

New opportunity to dialogue with executive branch
Too soon to tell whether and how much improvement on core concerns
Commitment to religious liberty for all means legislation still necessary

WASHINGTON— The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obama’s announcement today. But the Conference continues to express concerns. “While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB.

“The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals,” he said.

“Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “We hope to work with the Administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.”

More on Obama's War on Us

2012-02-08T12:56:00.002-05:00

I can't take a lot of time on this, but here are some items...

> Two weekends ago, our Archbishop directed his priests to read a letter at all Masses, and to provide the letter to the faithful. A similar request went out from bishops across the country, in most dioceses. This includes the Archdiocese for the Military.

However, someone in the Army interfered; directed the letter not be read; and the letter that was posted was censored.

Stop for a moment and absorb that. This is in the United States of America.

> At Over the Rhine and Into the Tiber I read this:

From www.barackobama.com, as quote this morning in an article on American Thinker:

Most women — including 98 percent of Catholic women — who have had sex have used contraception, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute.

“Have had sex.” Ever? “Have used contraception.” Ever?

As I posted there:

There is something worse at issue here. What bleeping business is it, of the President or any of his political allies, what percentage of Catholics (or members of any other religion) actually observe the teachings of their religion?

The claim may be true or false; it may give us Catholics cause for reflection or catechesis; but that’s all separate.

Where is the outrage that our President chooses to justify a policy on this basis?

Imagine if they passed a law–a la France–forbidding women from wearing veils–and Muslims protested that it violates their freedom; and the argument was, well, most of you Muslim women don’t wear the veil anyway.

The response is, “listen big government tyrant–whether we (Catholics/Jews/Muslims/etc.) are observant about our own faith is none of your business.

Once again, I think this is a huge deal. I cannot think of a time when any president ever involved himself in a theological or disciplinary matter within our Church. That was one of the great blessings of this country--that for the first time, the Church did not worry about interference from temporal authority.

Now it is President Obama who will go down in history as the first president--and God grant, the only--to transgress that understanding and to reach out to manipulate the Catholic Church.

> Postcards in the pews this weekend.

In Piqua, we're going to have postcards for parishioners to complete, which we will collect and mail. We'll be sending them to our Senators and Speaker Boehner. The text (for Boehner) is as follows:

Dear Speaker Boehner:

I urge you to schedule a vote for “The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act” (H.R. 1179, S. 1467), to block any attempt to force any American to buy or participate in health care that violates his or her conscience, such as the recent order by the Department of HHS concerning contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs being included in health care plans.

My religious freedom, protected by the First Amendment, is non-negotiable! All Americans, regardless of their faith, are in danger. We will watch closely to see how you vote.

Sincerely,

NCR sides against Catholic freedom

2012-01-30T11:32:00.003-05:00

The sad saga of the National (so called) Catholic Reporter continues.

On its site today, it posts an editorial that I would summarize as follows:

We're pretty much fine with Obama forcing Catholics to go along with contraceptives and sterilization and abortion-causing drugs, as part of health care, because...we think those are good things and that's where the crowd is going, and, well, we wish the Obama administration had been a little more subtle but so what. Everyone should stop complaining because that makes things unpleasant, and we don't like that.

You can, of course, read it for yourself and form your own conclusion.

I wonder what NCR blogger Michael Sean Winters--who wrote a scathing denunciation of President Obama's attack on religious freedom--will do now.

A new assignment

2012-01-28T16:59:00.000-05:00

(I am reading the following statement at all Masses in Piqua this weekend.)

As I described in the bulletin two months ago, pastors are routinely assigned for six-year terms, and when those terms end, they can be given new assignments, or else appointed for a second term.

My term as your pastor is coming due June 30 and thus Archbishop Schnurr faced a decision about either re-appointing me or giving me a new assignment.

After discussing the matter with the Archbishop, and Bishop Binzer, and giving consideration to the needs of the parishes, the Archbishop believes that I have done all I can do for the parishes in Piqua. I will be given a new assignment come July 1 but I don’t know yet what that will be. A new pastor will be sent here for both parishes. New pastors are usually announced in March or April.

In March, Bishop Binzer will come to Piqua and meet with the pastoral councils, the finance councils, the school board, and anyone else who wishes to participate, in order to explain how a new pastor is chosen and how this fits in with the needs of parishes in the area.

I have been honored to be your pastor.

'This is about conscience' (Sunday homily)

2012-01-28T16:00:00.002-05:00

I have a letter to read to you from Archbishop Dennis Schnurr.

(Read letter.)

At this time, we don’t know
whether Piqua Catholic School or Lehman High School
will be exempt.

It appears obvious our Catholic universities, our Catholic charities and hospitals,
will not be exempt. Obviously, any of us who own a business, won’t be exempt.

As you heard, Archbishop Schnurr has said, “we cannot—we will not—comply.”

Now, there are many who do not understand why we are taking this stand.

So, let me fill that in, so it’s clear why the Church is prepared—why I am prepared—
to go to jail rather than obey this. And it may come to that.
They will fine us if we do not obey; and either someone goes to jail,
or they seize our property, if we refuse to pay.

Why do we believe contraception and sterilization are so wrong
that we cannot and must not provide them as part of health plans?

Our human nature is caught up in God’s eternal plan.
We are not mere animals; God has said of us,
that you and I are made in his image and likeness.

So, first, that means that all our human choices are moral choices;
and when it comes to the use of our sexuality, this is especially true.

When a man and woman come together
they are capable at that moment—and no other—
in doing what otherwise, God alone can do:
bring into existence, out of nothing, a human being, an eternal soul!

The moment of a couple’s union is the moment when humanity is most like God.

So when Pope Paul VI in 1968 issued Humanae Vitae,
all he did was reiterate the constant teaching of the Church.
He did create a new doctrine. He restated it as follows.

Human acts of love are by their nature, both unifying and life-giving.
This is obvious.

Here is the key point: we believe that these two essential qualities of human acts of love
cannot and must not be separated.
The life-giving part must be respected and accepted together with the unifying part.
You can’t take one without the other.

Contraception and sterilization are two ways humans attempt to remove the life-giving part.
As Catholics, we believe this is a mortal sin—because it re-designs God's design,
and also it strikes at the very heart of our human identity.

And this is also why we cannot go along with
conceiving children outside of those same human acts of love—
so-called in vitro fertilization.
Because that again rejects God’s design in a mirror fashion:
by setting aside the unifying part, and taking procreation to a laboratory.

This helps explain why it we consider sex outside marriage to be sinful;
because only in the context of marriage—saying “I do” for life—
are these acts truthfully loving.
Love isn’t momentary or selfish; it’s forever and it gives all.

While on the subject, this is why we can never agree to redefine marriage.
Marriage—and thus family—are not the creation of governments.
Marriage of a man and a woman arises out of our human nature itself.
No one “invented” marriage; it is written in our very nature.

Here is what is under attack right now:
-- What is marriage?
-- What is family?
-- What is human life and human dignity?

In short, this is a war on our very human nature itself.
Is human nature itself subject to the whims and dictates of government?

Now, folks are saying, this is just a Catholic doctrine. Not all Americans share this faith.

Well, on the question of human dignity and marriage,
a society has to have common ground.
But on the question of contraceptives,
we aren’t asking every American to share these beliefs.
All we are asking is that our government not interfere in our beliefs!

This is about conscience.
We ought to be just as outraged
if it were Muslim or Amish or Jewish consciences that were being violated.
It would be just as wrong.

From now on, at every Mass, we will include a petition about this.

We will soon provide a way for you to write Congress.

I ask you to pray and fast. I ask you to contact Archbishop Schnurr—
his address is on the letter inserted in the bulletin—and give him your support.
Expect to hear a lot more, unless by God’s help, this is turned back quickly.

Sad to say but true...

2012-01-28T12:24:00.002-05:00

NCR Crowd clueless

2012-01-27T17:40:00.002-05:00

As we gear up to defend ourselves, as Catholics--and all Americans--from President Obama's declaration of war against religious freedom, one hopes a "liberal" publication such as the National (so called) Catholic Reporter would be on our side.

Well, to date the NCR has published two great articles from Michael Sean Winters, a pro-Obama blogger who is furious at the President for his administration's order that employers, regardless of religious principles, must pay to provide contraception, sterilization and abortion-causing drugs, as part of health care. This, of course, applies to churches, with only the slimmest exemption that may apply to parishes, perhaps parochial schools, but no farther.

But it has also published two articles explicitly attacking the bishops and endorsing this move by our government.

Then, today, is a fairly neutral article describing our bishops gearing up. The bishops, thank God, are roused with righteous anger, as we all should be.

Well, I'll let you find your way over there to see the mostly depressing comments by NCR's readers.

To their mind, the bishops refusing to go along represents an imposition by Catholics on the rest of our country!

If the matter were not so weighty, it would be comical. Editors of the NCR: do you read the comments from your own readers?

It reminds me of the demands, by King Henry VIII's minions, of Thomas More. He was content to resign as chancellor, and to remain silent ever after about the King's actions regarding his Queen and Parliament's declaration that the King--not the pope--was head of the Church in England. More simply asked to remain silent. He refused to sign the oath, but he refused to give any reason.

This was intolerable. Thus a show trial was trumped up, with perjured testimony, in order to send him to the gallows. Of course all this is vividly depicted in the famous play, "A Man For All Seasons." If I can imbed it properly, here's the scene from youtube:

I'd heartily recommend a viewing if you are looking for something to do on a winter's evening.

Archbishop Schnurr defies Obama Assault on Freedom

2012-01-25T17:02:00.004-05:00

I just received an email from his Excellency, Dennis Schnurr, Archbishop of Cincinnati.

Because it's a "PDF" file, it doesn't react well when I try to post it here, and I must run to hear confessions.

So I will simply tell you the Archbishop is taking a strong stand; he says, "we cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."

He asks that we fast and pray for deliverance from the oppression being visited upon us by our own government; and that we work to overturn this violation of the First Amendment.

I ask that you please pray for our bishops, and also tell them you support them.

UPDATE (1/26/12)

Here is the text of the Archbishop's letter:

January 26, 2012

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith.

The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people – the Catholic population and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Cathofic employers, will beforced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not corne to these shores to help build Arnerica’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience, to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to Contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Administration’s decision.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend Dennis M. Schnurr

Archbishop of Cincinnati

I prayed the Roman Canon the first time today...

2012-01-22T18:05:00.003-05:00

Today might have been the most emotional I've been at Mass since my father's funeral. And on that occasion, with God's help I kept my composure until the completion of the rites at the cemetery.

At Mass last night, and this morning, I nearly broke down while delivering my homily, as I described the unprecedented attack our own government is making on us, on our Faith, and the freedom to practice our faith which is our birthright and our national heritage. It's extremely upsetting. I've never felt this.

Today, at Saint Mary, as I stood at the altar, praying the Roman Canon, it's as if I was praying it for the first time--that is to say, hearing it's words and what they mean.

Early in the prayer (I don't have the improved translation memorized yet), we ask for God to enable the Church to live in peace. And it hit me: this was prayed, from the beginning, by Christians who feared the door being knocked down and they would be dragged away.

Until this day, I never prayed this prayer out of a personal sense of being the persecuted Church, because as an American, persecution was something that happened to Christians in other places and times.

I almost cried again at that moment of the prayer. The prayer felt so different today. I wonder if anyone else felt it. We're pleading for God to protect us from persecution; but in any case, to get us through it, with the peace the world cannot give.

The Church will survive; indeed, I believe she will thrive. This will, I believe, prove very good for us in many ways. As someone with a keen interest in politics, I think this will redound to the benefit, politically, of those who oppose Obama.

But I am...I don't know how to describe my feelings. I'm fired up; and you should be too! Every Catholic, every person who values freedom of conscience, should be fired up. Now!

But I'm sad. I love my country; I am broken hearted at the direction we are going. I have been for some time. It just hurts more deeply at the moment.

And in case you're wondering...I'm using a computer at the hotel in D.C. where I'm staying. I chose not to bring my laptop--just one more complication to passing through "security" at the airport. But let me not speak of that. Too sad.

On the way to D.C....

2012-01-22T10:41:00.001-05:00

Headed out imminently to the March for Life.

Please pray for all who are there, all who are travelling...

And most of all, pray for our country, our president who has declared war on the Catholic Church and on freedom of conscience.

More on the war on faith when I get back.

Urgency (Sunday homily)

2012-01-22T10:26:00.002-05:00

(From memory, I followed a mental outline)

As I reflected on the readings, a word came to me--I wonder if it occurred to you: urgency. There is great urgency in the readings we heard.

Jonah comes to Nineveh and tells them they must repent; very quickly the whole city responds: they felt urgency.

St. Paul says the world as we know it is passing away; he felt urgency.

In the Gospel, when our Lord said, "come follow me and I will make you fishers of men," they responded right away. They didn't write it down for later; they didn't say, after my kids are grown, or when things get easier. They dropped their nets and walked away.

So I wonder, what does this mean for us?

Well, today we mark an anniversary: the Roe v. Wade decision, striking down laws in 50 states against abortion, and bringing about abortion on demand. Almost 40 years has passed. Over a million every year, and millions of women are wounded. My home city of Cincinnati has about 300,000 people; that's three of my home cities in one year.

Do we feel urgency about this? Many will be in D.C. tomorrow, as will I; many of our students will ride a bus all night. There are 70 million Catholics in this country; if just 10%--7 million--showed up tomorrow in D.C., or in Columbus, or in Troy, would that communicate urgency?

The bishops have declared tomorrow a day of penance and prayer; whatever you do, wherever you are, they ask that we offer penance--make a sacrifice--offer prayers tomorrow.

Now, two days ago, the holy father met with some of our bishops. All the bishops of the world meet the holy father every 5 years. And he said the following--I'm paraphrasing. He said that your country was founded on good principles of human rights, godly principles. He quoted the Declaration of Independence. But, he said, there is a growing opposition to Christian principles; and he said the bishops need to speak up, to oppose it, to awaken the faithful and our nation to this. He was trying to create urgency.

The next day...and what I'm going to say is shocking, there's no way to sugar-coat it.

The next day, our president issued an order that every employer in the country, starting in August, must provide contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs as part of health care. There is a very narrow exception that might apply to our parish, but may not to our school; it certainly won't apply to our hospitals, universities and charities; and it won't apply to you, in your businesses. The only exception was that religious organizations could wait another year before compromising their consciences.

In 236 years, never has our government interfered with your freedom to practice our faith. We have been free to live our faith here; until this moment.

If we do not comply, we will be fined. I tell you, as long as I am your pastor, we will not obey! They can take me to jail.

Now, we have hope that the courts will strike this down, it's so outrageous. But we might have hoped the courts would do the right thing 40 years ago, but they didn't.

Who will speak up? There are 70 million Jonahs; 70 million Apostles in this country. God calls us.

I sprinkled you with water today, recalling your baptism. You were chosen to share his mission; you've already been called.

Now, some don't understand why our Church teaches what it does about contraception. We priests don't talk about it enough. Let me explain this briefly: love is for life.

We are not merely human. God has paid us the intolerable compliment of giving us divine quality, including us in his plan. So our human actions have a divine element. And when a couple comes together, we are most like God. So human acts of love always include God, include the gift of life. We don't leave him out.

But this isn't about the teaching. What if this were happening to our Muslim brothers and sisters; our Jewish brothers and sisters? Would we wash our hands of it, if their conscience was under attack?

This is upsetting; I'm upset, I'm sorry. This is serious. Who will speak up? God calls you.

Epiphany Homily

2012-01-09T17:16:00.002-05:00

(This is from memory, I had a mental outline...)

I started by explaining how Epiphany completes the Christmas Season, more or less (technically the Baptism of the Lord does; however that's not celebrated on a Sunday this year). I explained how it represents the fulfillment of prophecy--Isaiah spoke about a light to the nations, and all the nations would come to worship the one true God. Little Judah, about to snuffed out in Isaiah's time, seems an improbable means for that; but when the Magi arrive--standing for all the Gentiles that would come to believe in Jesus--then the promise is fulfilled. I pointed out that 1/3 of the world believes in Jesus, so it's come true; except that another 2/3rds remain to be reached.

Then I talked about the theme of light--and joked about all the candles we had lit. And I pointed out that if God wanted to fill the world with brilliant light, he could do that easily by causing our sun, or a nearby star, to blow up--and we'd go out in a blaze of glory! God's courtesy is to ask our cooperation in filling hearts with light.

So, how will we increase light in ourselves--and in then in others--this coming year?

I offered three practical suggestions:

> Forgive. I talked about the difficulty of forgiving and steps to overcome that. I explained that when we forgive, we aren't saying what others did wrong was OK, but we are turning them over to God to deal with, and letting go ourselves. I asked, what if God called you and said, "I understand So-and-so owes you a big debt--what if I repay it?" And of course we know what comes next if we agree: God has already paid!

> I said that one way to make forgiving easier is to experience forgiveness--i.e., in the sacrament of reconciliation. The more we appreciate how much God has forgiven us, the easier we will find it to give forgiveness. And I recalled our Lord's words that the measure we use, will be used for us; so forgiveness is practical; measure mercy to others generously, so we can receive it in the same measure.

> And I concluded by saying, to help with both of these, try encountering the Light of Christ at the source--visit our chapel (where we have perpetual exposition). I reminded folks the chapel was open 24 hours, and a short visit with kids would be well worthwhile. But I cautioned that a direct encounter with the Lord might change things, just like it changed the Magi. Once we see him, what might he ask?

That's my best recollection.

Restaurant Weekend

2012-01-09T16:52:00.002-05:00

Here's another true story from parish life...

This weekend I was running a restaurant. I served about 250 people something to eat this weekend. Here's the background.

Every year I have a dinner with the staff of the two parishes. Most years I take them out to a restaurant, but that gets pricey; once before I fixed dinner myself; and this year, I decided to do that again.

Also, every year, I fix breakfast for everyone in the parishes--at least, everyone who comes. I do it one weekend at St. Boniface, and one weekend at St. Mary.

I do these things around Christmas. My gift to everyone.

So Dec. 18 was breakfast at St. Boniface. January 8 was breakfast at St. Mary.

Oh, and the date for the staff party was January 7.

So, Friday was shopping day; and I started the brine for the chickens I would roast. Because the rectory dining room was not big enough for the staff, I planned on using one of the rooms in the school. So that meant planning for food, dishes and other things to go over to the school so I could do what I needed to there; but to do some things in the rectory.

Saturday was pretty busy with prep and set up. I had to figure out what to do before I left for Mass at 4 pm; and what I'd do after I returned.

Actually, everything was finished early; I forgot I told everyone to show up at 6:30, and so around 6 I'm looking out and wondering, where is everyone? All the food got done in plenty of time; but thankfully we have these warmer things in the school cafeteria. So no problems.

The dinner turned out beautifully, if I do say so myself. Everyone seemed to have a good time, and I sent leftovers home with the Sisters, because they take a vow of poverty and, well, being the pastor, you can do things like that. They should eat well for a week.

So while we're cleaning up--God bless the guests for helping! I set things up for the next morning. I had to start cooking the eggs around 6 am -- the eggs are liquid, in sealed bags, and all you do is boil them for about 2 hours and voila! Scrambled eggs!

So up--groggily--at 6 am--time to start the eggs!

Then off to 7 am Mass; then pick up the donuts and the juice--back to the other parish.

Oops--the eggs are cooking too fast! Almost done! OK, slow things down...meanwhile I put the sausage in the oven, start the coffee, get everything set up. Forgot, once again, to ask the janitor to leave the chairs down in the cafeteria so I took those down. All the food is ready by 9:30 am, I expect folks around 10 am.

Everyone showed up, and I think I served about 200, can't say for sure. We had just enough food, Deo Gratias! But we did run out of orange juice. Again, good folks helped me clean up, and I was able to get over to church in time for Noon Mass.

I don't mind telling you I was tired after Mass.

But I'm glad to do something for our parishioners. So many do so much and I don't really do a good job saying thank you. This is what I can do.

Fixing dinner...

2012-01-07T14:06:00.002-05:00

Today I've been busy with a dinner for our parish staffs.

The menu is as follows...

Before dinner:

Cheese & crackers
Chips & dip
Crudites
Shrimp
Soft and hard drinks

Dinner:

Rosemary roast chicken
Three cheese lasagna
Steamed vegetables
Garlic potatoes
Rolls and butter
Various wines

Dessert:

Cheesecake
Fruit salad
Coffee

Here's my checklist thus far:

6:45 Dinner is ready to serve
6:40 Place vegetables, potatoes and rolls on table
6:40 Place Lasagna & chicken platters on table
6:30 Heat potatoes and vegetables
5:30 Butter dish and other items on table
6:00 Chickens out of oven
Lasagna out of oven
5:30 pm Lasagna in oven
5:15 pm check chickens; move to warming oven as needed
5:15 pm Return from St. Boniface
3:30 pm Depart for St. Boniface
3:15 pm Chickens in oven
2:30 pm Prep chickens
1:00 pm Take food over to school kitchen
Noon Set tables in St. Mary Room

You'll notice the list is in reverse order. I don't know how others do it, but when I plan events like this, I plan my time backward, so I start things on time, but not too early and certainly not too late.

The last three items are italics because I've checked them off. Next is a shower (not on the list!) and then to take care of the chickens.

And, yes, there are other items not included; these were the things that I needed to plan; the rest I'm not worried about.

More on the NCR's rebellion against the Catholic Faith

2012-01-05T12:41:00.004-05:00

At the site of my friend, Father John Zuhlsdorf, I saw a link to some documents from the '60s about the National (so-called) Catholic Reporter--which is sadly a very vigorous advocate of dissent, and frequently and actively opposes several teachings of the Church, and meanwhile pours acid on the foundations of the Faith generally.

If you don't care to follow the link, it both tells the sad story of how the NCR started as a diocesan publication, but parted company, and before long, the bishop himself was forced to rebuke the publication publicly for no longer being truly Catholic.

It's sad to think their dissent and denial of truths of the Faith weren't so persistent; however, the hopeful thought is that, perhaps they've improved a bit since then? Maybe that is too wistful a hope.

I share this with you because if you go to a site such as the NCR, or pick up a copy and see "Catholic," you might reasonably assume it is Catholic. I think it's necessary to clarify that.

Was Jesus born on December 25?

2011-12-30T12:35:00.001-05:00

One of the questions that comes up, especially at this time of year, is whether there's much, if any, connection between December 25, and the actual birthday of our Lord.

And one will very often see or hear someone say something like, "of course Jesus wasn't born on December 25," as if this has been settled.

Not so.

Yes, scholars have questioned whether December 25 is the correct day. Yes, we don't know for absolute certainty that December 25 is the right day; and the Church has never thought it appropriate to make such a statement. And she is wise not to, until such time as it really is proven clearly--because our Faith is that he was born, not just what day it happened.

But, all that is not the same as saying December 25 has nothing going for it. Moreover, admitting room for doubt doesn't validate all the arguments made against December 25--many of which are made in pursuit of an agenda by those who wish to sow doubt.

True, it's not a critical question, there is the problem that, for many people, doubt about the validity of something like this tends to spread, and sow doubt more broadly about what we believe, and the basis for what we believe.

So I think it's worth exploring--not because I aim to settle the matter; but because I think folks who adhere to Christian tradition, and give it credibility, need not be defensive or embarrassed about doing so. Even if the things we believe as a matter of tradition can't always be proven definitively, the more we look at them, the more reason we have to feel confident about their validity. I think you'll see that's the case here.

OK, let's get down to it: what are some reasons to accept the validity of December 25?

For me, the first question to ask is, where did the idea of December 25, as our Lord's birthday, come from? It surely wasn't arbitrary: some bishop didn't pull numbers out of hat.

One claim frequently made is that it was chosen to counteract a pagan celebration; either Saturnalia, which was celebrated in mid-December, or else to counteract a pagan festival called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or, the Feast of the Birth of the Unconquerable Sun.

We meet this argument throughout the year: the Feast of the Presentation on February 2 is really about a pagan day then; Easter, May Day, Hallowe'en, etc., are all about "baptizing" pre-existing pagan celebrations.

Well, it's one thing to say that Christians looked for ways to make connections, and build bridges between the experiences and beliefs of the pagans they were evangelizing, and another to say Christians simply took paganism and gave it a fresh coat of paint, so to speak. The fact is, as Christians encountered many cultures and customs through the early centuries, there was no avoiding some coincidence between the events celebrated in our Lord's life, and local observances. So noticing coincidences is no more meaningful than discovering who else was born the same day as you.

On the other hand, that's not to say that pagan customs had no influence. They certainly did; it's hard to imagine it being otherwise. So, for example, the Roman feast of Saturnalia fell on December 17, and at some point was expanded for several days, until December 23; and it involved candles and gift giving. So if pagan Romans, upon becoming Christians, continued giving gifts, what's wrong with that? But again, that doesn't prove that's why the Lord's birth was celebrated in December; because again, there were lots of other celebrations all year long they could have linked it to--if that was the motive. There's almost nothing to show that the date was picked for that reason.

The coincidence of the Sol Invicti celebration is more notable--it's the same day, and it has some surface similarities--references to light and the sun.

Well, it could be; however, that's a thin connection. Moreover, there is the fact that Sol Invicti wasn't a longstanding Roman celebration; it was relatively unknown until the 200s, when the Emperor Elagabalus (AD 218-222) instituted it But his worship of the sun god was something imported from Syria--it wasn't popular, and when he assassinated, his new feast was abolished(1)

Fast-forward to AD 274, when the Emperor Aurelian instituted the feast day; and this time, the practice took hold. But by 274, Christians had already been celebrating December 25 as the Lord's birthday for some time, although not universally. The feast of the Lord's nativity, like so many other feasts of our faith, was not imposed from above, as it were--by the pope or the bishops--but from "below"--it started as a local observance and spread(2).

We have a few written references to Christians celebrating the Lord's birth on December 25; one by St. Hippolytus, around AD 204; then we have other writings, from North Africa and Judea, that while not directly mentioning December 25, nonetheless support the date. Now this will take a bit of explaining, so stick with me here.

There was a Jewish concept at that time of "integral age"--i.e., the belief that great men or prophets would be conceived the same day they died. And it is in that context that some early Christians would tend to emphasize that our Lord died on March 25--implying they also believe he was conceived that day.(3)

In any case, all this does is show at least some basis for December 25 being chosen, other than reacting to a pagan celebration. Indeed, it could easily be the opposite: the pagan celebration was played up, in response to the growing Christian movement--which we do know was strongly disapproved of by various emperors, who--after all--repeatedly tried to suppress it.

OK, there's one argument. Not overwhelming. But there are other points to consider.

Remember, the Lord's birth didn't involve just one event on one day; it involved several events on several days, including events involving other people. Remember, the Scriptures tell us about Jesus' birth, in relation to that of John the Baptist; and then the Scriptures tell us about Jesus being circumcised 8 days after his birth; and then presented in the temple 40 days after.

The connection to John the Baptist is interesting, because it raises the question of when Zachariah, his father, as a priest of the temple, may have had his time of service before the Lord. The Gospel of Luke tells us that Zachariah "was serving as priest in his division’s turn before God" (1:8) -- there was a rotation of 24 groups who each took two weeks a year; according to this article by Darrell Pursiful, there were three weeks a year when everyone showed up--and that sounds plausible enough. In any case, this rotation would mean Zachariah would have had two weeks, approximately six months apart.

As Dr. Pursiful explains in the article linked above--and I've seen this argument elsewhere, but I can't put my hands on a reference just now--there would be several weeks when Zachariah might have been on duty; and one of them would, indeed, line up with John being conceived in September, and then born in June--six months before our Lord.

Not definitive, but supportive, is the best one can say.

Before I close this out, let me offer a different argument: from memory.

You and I are a long way from these events; we don't experience them as a personal or communal memory. But in the early Church, that's just how the events of our Lord's life would have been experienced. In the first two Christian centuries, the memory of when things happened would have been vivid; we know that the community of believers went to great effort to sustain those memories. The letters of the apostles were not only carefully preserved, they were quickly copied and circulated widely. The Gospels were written not long after the events they describe; and they, too, were both treasured and copied. And these writings didn't happen in a void; they interacted with the faith and memory of the people--both those who experienced these events first-hand, in Galilee and Judea, and then those who heard these things from them, and then, in turn, passed them along.

There is no speculation here; we know that the memory and passing on of these things was tremendously important to early Christians. Outside of the New Testament, we have a lot of textual evidence of all that people did to hold onto the memories of what Mary, Joseph, and the Apostles did, in addition, of course, to what our Lord said and did.

And there would be a lot of memory to preserve, surrounding the key events of our Lord's life: the events with Zachariah and Elizabeth, the annunciation to Mary, the journey to Bethlehem, the Lord's birth, circumcision, presentation in the temple, the flight to Egypt, the visit again to the temple when he was 12, and of course the events when he was an adult and began his public ministry, leading to his suffering, death and resurrection.

So what became of these memories, so devotedly cultivated and passed down? I submit they are with us still, in the liturgical cycle we observe. We don't just observe Christmas in isolation: it lines up with dates for the Annunciation (March 25), John's birthday (June 24), the Circumcision (January 1) and the Presentation (February 2). And, as noted, at one time the date of the crucifixion was aligned with the date of presumed conception; and notice, every few years, it still happens that Good Friday falls on March 25.

There are those who suppose that the early Christians, whether in choosing dates for observances, or else in tracking down relics such as the True Cross, were relatively easily satisfied; so, for example, I've heard people argue that when St. Helena got to the Holy Land and found a cross, she was fairly credulous about it. But that makes no sense to me. St. Helena's journey would have been a very difficult undertaking; why, with so much sacrifice and effort, not to mention cost, would she then accept whatever someone offered her as the True Cross? It makes far more sense to me that such a formidable woman would have--after all she invested in this effort--not be easily satisfied. Do you really suppose she never met a sharpie or a con man in her life until she showed up in Jerusalem?

Until some evidence comes forward, we can't establish the matter for certain, but my feeling is that the burden of proof doesn't lie with those who celebrate December 25 as the Lord's birthday, but with those who dispute it. Just because we don't have much information now about why that date was chosen, doesn't mean they didn't have it, then; so much of what they knew, even what was once written down and widely known, is simply lost to us now. Some presumption is fair to give to those who first established this feast day, on December 25, that they had good reasons for doing so. Since the evidence we do have is supportive, even if not conclusive, I don't know why that isn't good enough?

(1), (2) Carl J. Sommer, "The Festival of Lights: Hannukkah, Christmas and the early Church," in the December 2011 edition of Homiletic and Pastoral Review,.

(3) Ibid; referring to William Tighe, "Calculating Christmas," p.1.

The 'operatic farce' of the NCR

2011-12-29T09:51:00.002-05:00

For some time, I have regularly read the National Catholic Reporter online.

I wish I could recommend the publication, but unfortunately, every word in its name is false: it isn't "national"--the publication represents only a narrow slice of Catholics; it doesn't simply "report," it has an agenda, which is fine, except it's particularly heavy-handed in its approach to it.

And, very sad to say, it isn't "Catholic." To be "Catholic" is to be embrace the whole. (The word catholic comes from two Greek words, kata and holos, meaning "pertaining to the whole. You can even see the connection between holos and the words "whole" and "holistic.")

Sadly, the National Catholic Reporter does not embrace the whole of the Catholic Faith. Its writers and editors routinely and aggressively dissent from many elements of the Faith, including:

* The essential quality of human sexuality being inseparably procreative and unifying, and thus being essentially heterosexual.

The NCR crowd (meaning its guiding lights, its editors and writers, and the audience it cultivates) rejects this, embracing as moral contraception, homosexual acts and so-called same-sex marriage.

* The essential quality of the sacrament of holy orders being conferred only on men.

This has always been the practice of the Church, it is the universal practice of all Churches who preserve valid orders--i.,e., not only the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, but also all the non-Latin branches of the Church which are in communion with Rome (such as the Byzantine and Maronite Churches, and other "Eastern" rites of the Church), and also the many Orthodox Churches and the so-called ancient "Churches of the East"--which divided from both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches over disputes in the 300s-400s, yet preserve valid sacraments, including holy orders.

This was formally and infallibly defined by Pope John Paul II in 1994, and thus is irreformable.

* The necessity of a priest to offer the Mass.

The NCR frequently gives space to the false claim that the Mass can be celebrated validly in the absence of a priest.

* The basic structure and history of the Church's creation and structure: i.e., that Christ founded the Church on the apostles, and the Church is, by his design and intention, governed by the successors of the apostles, led by Peter's successor, the pope.

The NCR eagerly provides a forum for the most contemptuous, vicious attacks on the bishops and the pope of any so-called "Catholic" site I've ever seen. And while I cannot exactly identify the governing structure the NCR folks have in mind for the Church, they never miss a chance to take a rhetorical wrecking-ball to the structure that we have, which, yes, has changed and evolved over the millenia--yet is still firmly rooted in what our Lord said and did in collaboration with his chosen apostles.

The bottom line of the NCR's position is to deny the historicity of the Church's self-knowledge (via Scripture and Tradition) of how Christ founded the Church. Thus, to the NCR's mind, it's all up for grabs.

Beyond these most serious cases of the NCR being deliberately not-Catholic, is its increasingly bizarre reaction to the newly implemented translation of the Roman Missal.

While I have been generally in favor of it, I recognize many folks weren't and I don't fault anyone who didn't like the idea, and doesn't like the result. And whatever my personal feelings, or anyone else's, my judgment was, this is coming, I do no one any favors by moaning and groaning about it, emphasizing the negative.

The truth is, the new Missal is hardest on priests; the changes that folks in the pews have had to learn involve prayers that can--and have been--printed on both sides of a book-sized card. I just took a look at one of those cards; the actual changed words (printed in bold) add up to about 100 words.

Meanwhile, the words the priest prays have changed throughout.

Now, some priests have complained--loudly. I have not. I'm not going to complain. If you ask me if I like, or would have made, each and every change that was made, the answer is no. Had the pope called me for advice, I'd have suggested some different things. But he never called! I'm not bitter about that; I don't expect the pope to seek my advice on such things; nor do I expect that any such work of translation will get it exactly right.

But I'll be danged if I'm going to complain about it, no matter what; because in the great scheme of things, this is hardly any great suffering for me. I can appreciate that other priests are finding it more difficult, but speaking as a priest, all of us chose to embrace follow the Lord, taking up his cross. We all know that being a priest involves trials and difficulties, of which this is relatively benign.

And if I'm going to complain, I'm not going to complain to the faithful. What good would that do anyone? How would that add to your sanctification, or mine?

OK, so the NCR didn't like this translation, and has, along the way, objected to both the process and the result. They have every right to voice their views, and at some point in the process, they might reasonably have hoped to have some influence. For all I know, they may have had some influence on the process.

But at a particular point--many, many months ago--the translation was finalized and adopted--and the next stop was publishing Missals and helps, and proceeding with introducing the new translation into widespread use. And that came to fruition a few weeks ago.

Most folks, who advocate for a point of view, and don't prevail, would move on. We all have a vote, and we all see the candidates we believe in, lose. We don't like it; we believed the candidate we voted for would have done better, and we can all see, as things unfold, whether we were right. But we move on.

The past few weeks, the NCR has made clear it's not moving on. First an article from Father Richard McBrien, now an article by NCR editor Tom Roberts, continuing a rear-guard action against the Missal.

The complaints are, to be candid, ridiculous.

Really, Mr. Roberts, you're going to take your stand on how awful, terrible it is to say "and with your spirit"? You seriously consider "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof"? a terrible imposition on you? When Catholics are having their churches bombed in Nigeria, they don't dare have Midnight Mass in Iraq, and in many places, they wonder if their family will be the last Catholic to leave the land of their birth?

Yes, of course it's take effort to learn something new; and we all feel a little silly when we get it wrong. If we want to make a big deal out of it, that's our choice. But we also can all have some patience and humor about it and know, before long, it'll all be behind us and then we'll wonder what all the fuss was about.

What I found interesting is the silence, so far, from the NCR on a particular point.

As the NCR "reported" on the new Missal, during the past year, a frequent claim was that Christmas, especially, would be a train-wreck--because even with all the careful explanations and preparation, churches would be filled with folks who only attend Mass occasionally, and they wouldn't be up-to-speed, resulting in (pardon the pun) Mass confusion.

Well, the retired priest who lives with me--and who wasn't enthusiastic about any of this, but also didn't engage in a dramatic temper-tantrum about it--took a much more even strain. He said--about not only Christmas but the whole build up to the new translation: this won't be that big a deal. The responses the people give aren't changing that much. He predicted no train-wreck on Christmas.

Well, at least here in Piqua, he was 100% right.

No doubt there were folks who were puzzled, but what I heard at a crowded 6 pm Mass, as well as at the well attended midnight and 9 am Masses was strong use of the new responses. No doubt some folks remained silent because of uncertainty, but I'm not sure they'd have done any differently without a new translation. At weddings, when many of the same, occasional Mass-attenders are present, they similarly don't give the responses--and this was true before any changes were in the offing.

So if Mr. Roberts and his folks have had different experiences at Mass, I am wondering if their pastors took the approach I did--focusing on the positive and trying to keep folks together--or did their pastors reflect the negativity of the NCR? I'll never know, but: I think had I chosen to get up, week after week, and complain bitterly about this, sighing and rolling my eyes over the new translation, we might have a very different experience here of the new translation. If Mr. Roberts and any of his readers are experiencing negativity around them in the pews, I wonder how much of it is the fruit of the attitude he, himself, adopted, and which the NCR fostered as much as it could, among priests and laity.

One of the truly rich claims of the NCR crowd is that the new translation represents an attack on Vatican II.

This is utterly ridiculous. It is, not to put too fine a point on it: false.

The key facts the NCR and those who take its view are obscuring is this: the "problems" they identify are not with the translation, but with the prayers of the Mass itself, as revised after--and, putatively, in accord with--the Second Vatican Council. To put it bluntly, their problem is with the prayers of the Vatican II Mass. They don't like what Pope Paul VI and those who assisted him, came up with after the Council.

The NCR and others of like mind rely on a fuzzy recollection of Vatican II and the resulting "new Mass." Here's the sequence:

* The bishops at Vatican II issued a document, Sacrosanctum Concilium, in which a number of issues related to the liturgy were raised; and calling for some revision of the Church's liturgy. The Council did not get into a lot of specifics about this or that change; and the surprising truth is, many changes associated with Vatican II were never mentioned at the Council--nor, for that matter, were they ever mandated following the Council.

* Rather quickly, Pope Paul VI--who presided over the latter portion of the Council, after the death of Blessed Pope John XXIII--appointed a team of experts usually called "the concilium." This was a group of bishops, priests and others who, presumably, had the expertise to put into concrete detail what the Council called for. There was, and remains, controversy over what they did, whether it went too far, or not far enough, in relation to the Council's directives; but in any case, they produced what we can call the "new" Mass: the revised order of Mass that is still in use to this day.

* That Missal, in Latin, has changed only slightly since 1970 when it was issued. Simply put, the Missal sitting on altars across the U.S. is the Mass of Vatican II.

* It was translated rather quickly; in fact, there was a period, between the Council and the adoption of the new Missal, in which the Mass changed several times, and there were provisional translations used at that time. But it was understood that further work of translating would follow. To some degree, that's a necessary consequence of using the vernacular; the Latin doesn't need to change precisely because its not a language in active use, and thus subject to evolution or drift in understood meanings.

* The English translation adopted in 1970 is the one that was just recently set aside, after a lengthy process of adopting a new translation. The new translation, for good or ill, took a different approach, from a "freer" style to a more direct style of translating. This is where the NCR and others focus their criticism--they consider the more direct method of translating--which arose from directives from Blessed Pope John Paul II--to be wrong.

OK, they can raise those objections. No one would claim the pope's directives about translating the the liturgy to be infallible or irreformable. A future pope may take a different approach. And, as far as I know, the NCR and likeminded folks raised their objections at the time.

However; the pope was not--in the NCR's appealing terminology--being a dictator or out of bounds in giving the direction he gave. To put it simply: that's the pope's job! His letter, Liturgiam authenticam, makes his case for his directives. You can disagree; you can wish he did differently. But it strikes me as bizarre, and ultimately very damaging, to seek--as the NCR does--at every turn to undermine the pope in carrying out his responsibilities.

Now, the idea has gotten currency that choices in translating fall into neat categories: either "free" or "strict" translation. Rather, it's a continuum between these poles; you can't really go all the way to one extreme or the other, but you can be more one way, or the other. The new translation is more toward the "strict" pole, but it isn't "slavish" about it. Every translator must make choices and compromises--that's just how it works.

Also, the NCR and many of like mind, conveys the idea that Latin is so foreign, so different, that translation is guesswork, that terms in English just don't line up with what the Latin says.

This is simply wrong. Latin is a very precise language, for one; and second, English contains a vast quantity of Latin. They have so much in common, it's not that great a leap to move from Latin to English. Not being familiar with Chinese, or Hindi, or the native languages of pre-Columbian America, or of Africa, I could readily believe that translating from Latin into those languages might indeed occasion serious leaps and approximations. But this argument falls completely flat with Latin in relation to English.

* Be that as it may, the real substance of the complaints voiced by the NCR and others in agreement with its stance isn't about the inevitable zigs or zags of the translators' choices, but what the underlying prayers themselves say. Some examples:

(1) "And with your spirit"
(2) "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault"
(3) "I believe"
(4) "visible and invisible"
(5) "consubstantial"
(6) "for you and for many"
(7) "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof" etc.

Well, here's your problem, NCR: what you object to isn't original with the new, English translation, but is part-and-parcel of the Latin prayers being translated; the Latin prayers revised and adopted, after the Council. What you don't like is the substance of the prayers...themselves.

Let's grant the point the NCR makes about each of these: that in one way or the other, the ideas expressed in these parts of the prayers are inferior; misleading or somehow fail to convey what we believe. That they should be changed. I actually think this position is wrong--but let's give the NCR the full benefit of the doubt, and say each and every critique on this subject is 100% correct.

So what to do about that?

The answer is, the problem is not in the "translation" at all, but in the original prayers being translated. Therefore, fixing these problems is not the task of the translator at all, but the pope and the bishops.

The funny thing is, NCR and its crowd complains that all these represent a serious attack on Vatican II. Funny, because neither the Council itself made any such claims--none of these passages in the prayers were singled out by the Council for revision--nor did the experts, chosen by Paul VI, see any conflict between "And with your spirit" or "for you and for many" with the Council.

They recommended and implemented pretty dramatic changes in the Mass--yet these items they did not change.

So the NCR's solution is to have translators deliberately obscure the meaning of the underlying Latin prayers; to misrepresent, to you and everyone, what those prayers say. Their approach is to promote the idea that Latin, being an old, dead language, is so very hard to translate, and really, who can say what "et cum spiritu tuo" and "pro multis" or "sub tectum meam" really mean anyway?

If NCR wants to be honest about it, they won't focus on the translation--because the translation's purpose is to convey, accurately, what the prayers say. The problems they cite with the new translation as being so terrible are issues not of wording or syntax, but of substance: they don't like what the prayers actually say.

Well, fine--then take it up with the bishops, and ask them to fix the prayers, in the Latin original. Change "pro multis" to "pro omnes"...in the Latin; change "et cum spiritu tuo" to "et tecum," etc.

Most folks have, or will, move on. The new translation presents many opportunities for new understanding of the prayers of the Mass and of our Faith. How helpful it might have been for the NCR to focus on what's positive. But the editors and writers at the NCR just can't seem to do that. Instead it's approach is bitter and, frankly, reactionary.

In a comment I posted at NCR earlier, I referred to this continuing rear-guard action as an "operatic farce." Because it's so over the top, and both comic and tragic. One part of me finds it laughable; yet the damage is real, and there's nothing funny about that.

The Humanism of Norman Rockwell

2011-12-26T15:21:00.004-05:00

Today I stopped down to the Dayton Art Institute to see the Norman Rockwell exhibit, which goes to February I think. It cost $16, for which I imagine I could have browsed the rest of the museum; but I was ready to go once I'd been through the special exhibit.

I heard about this via the principal of Piqua Catholic; our kids were scheduled to go, and I was going to join them. But as often happens, I got busy and forgot. Had I gone, I'd have liked to help the kids see the humanism of Rockwell--his reverence for the human being and all we experience. There is something very Catholic about this Yankee Protestant artist whose artwork didn't betray much explicit religiosity.

Rockwell was--and I think still is--scorned and diminished as a mere illustrator; he spent his life creating artwork that appeared in magazines and advertisements. His famous covers for the Saturday Evening Post were constrained by the wishes of his employer. They tended to be sedate and whimsical, seldom edgy, and even then, only several decades along. They were overwhelmingly white, Waspish and middle-class--to some degree, at least, expressing the culture of the magazine.

Is this why he is dismissed? If so, I might point out how many great artists created their masterpieces for pay.

Is it that his work is not terribly original? Or that he lacked technical proficiency? I can't believe the latter. I am no art critic, but I find many things in his work to admire: his use of color, light and shade; his ability to convey so much emotion--and to tell a story. As the plaques the Dayton Art Institute placed near his works pointed out, his works seem simple, until you look more closely.

Its hard to recall everything, but there was one--which the accompanying sign said was unpublished--entitled (if I recall correctly) "War News." Four men in a diner. The cook/proprietor nearest us, his face turned away from the radio, but not toward us--he is glancing perhaps to the grill, or the door, or the cash register, or another customer out of view. But his face shows he is listening to the radio. The other three men are customers on the other side of the counter. Two men are older--the sort of men likely to be home during World War II. The third customer's face is obscured, but the features that are visible suggest a young man, and he is in uniform. I took him to be a soldier, perhaps on leave, or perhaps about to ship out. Everyone's body language shows interest. No joy; no fear exactly, but anxiety--and some signs of hope.

All our wars in my memory were such that I neither knew anyone in them, nor did I reasonably fear the outcome. In my time, war dispatches were watched on TV or read online. I cannot personally describe listening to the radio, in the context of a war which our nation might lose. Yet that is what this work depicted--and I, at least, felt it.

The written descriptions accompanying the artworks said that the Post had a policy that "people of color" could not be depicted, except as servants. If so, that is shocking--and revealing of a different world from what we know. Is Rockwell to blame for going along? Did he fail to be more prophetic? Well, let us consider this.

I noted one painting, of a boy on a train, dressed very nicely--suggesting some wealth. He is travelling alone, perhaps suggesting he is a sort of little prince. He is looking at the bill--the accompanying caption said he is figuring out the tip. Nearby stands a waiter--a tall, strong black man--who gazes down upon the boy, smiling. Supposedly he is the inferior.

Yet while he smiles and is at ease, and shows human concern--he is ready, it seems, to help the boy if asked; the boy is frowning--more out of uncertainty than disapproval--and does not seem even to notice the black man. Rockwell is sometimes diminished as an illustrator of a "Leave it to Beaver" idealization of American life. So what is this? Am I the only one who hopes the boy will notice the man, and look up to him? Is that a projection into the work--or is there something in what the artist tried to convey that evoked that in me? What do you make of the fact that I am 60 years removed from the work--and a wider, cultural gap yawns between my world and that which first viewed this work--and yet it communicates so powerfully to me? Is that not art?

Again, I am no art critic; however, I suspect Rockwell was dismissed to some degree at least, because he went against the fashion--as defined by the highbrows at least. Most of the trends in 20th century art go totally contrary to where Rockwell went.

Rockwell was keenly interested in the human person. He did not distort human beings--he discovered in them a wide range of expression. And he was primarily interested in the human being above all.

An example: in the exhibit were two portraits: of General Eisenhower and of Senator John F. Kennedy. And I noticed each featured the same device: the faces were illustrated with sumptuous detail, while the clothing was barely there. Just enough to frame the subject. It was as if the artist was saying, "let me focus your gaze on what's really interesting--what's truly revealing. And so he did.

Now, something fascinating happened after I had finished the exhibit. In the last room--where all the covers of the Post created by Rockwell were shown in succession--were comfortable couches, where several folks were relaxing. After I finished looking at the artwork, I took a seat and prayed my office. As I did, I looked up at the folks sitting in a couch catty-cornered to me--and it took my breath away.

A grandfather (I suppose) and three boys, all clearly brothers, ranging (I would guess) from 16 to 8 or 10. The grandfather's (nearest to me) head was down, eyes closed. He was napping. The older boys--furthest away--were leaning back, looking bored or tired. And the youngest was leaning forward, his back and face arced upward, gazing intently at something in front of them. All this was in profile to me.

It was a scene straight out of a Rockwell painting. As I studied them--until I was noticed and looked away politely!--I could see exactly the sorts of details Rockwell himself brought out in his works. The fascinating, appealing details of ordinary human life. Nothing exalted--except that simply being human, being alive, is truly wonderful. I consciously tried to remember what I saw, so I could describe it to you, and not forget what happened.

Now, contrast that with so much of the art of Rockwell's time--before and during--in which the human being becomes fuzzy and blurred; then becomes blobs of color or reduced to mechanisms; until the human being disappears altogether. (Look up "Nude descending a staircase" to see what I mean.) Meanwhile, Rockwell, who could have depicted anything he liked, found nothing so interesting to show us as the human being.

Which world view feels safer for your future?

Looking for a miracle? (Christmas homily)

2011-12-25T00:01:00.001-05:00

In Saint Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he said:
“Jews seek for a sign, Greeks look for wisdom.”

Another way to say that would be,
some of us want to be impressed with miracles;
others need to be impressed by a good argument.

Which are you looking for this Christmas?

If your faith is frayed or your hope is unsteady?

If you want a miracle, the fact is, miracles happen all the time.

I mean real miracles--things that science cannot explain.

They’ve happened to me.

I remember visiting a patient in the hospital--
arriving as the doctor said,
“your wife won’t make it, say your goodbyes.”
The husband asked me to anoint his wife,
and as everyone was sobbing, that’s what I did.

The doctors said she wouldn’t make it--
but she’s still alive today.

The other day, NPR reported on a miracle:
a boy had a terrible infection spreading rapidly over his body.
The family prayed to Blessed Kateri--
they pinned a medal for her on his pillow next to him.
Like Blessed Kateri, the boy was Native American;
like Kateri, his face was being disfigured by an illness.

The day he received the medal
is the day the infection was stopped and reversed.

I could go on…

But the point is, if miracles were what it took to convince us,
Why would we need more
than the Lord’s miracle of multiplying loaves,
or raising the dead--or rising from the dead himself?

We ask for signs--and we get them--and it’s not enough.

Or, we don’t even notice it happens…
like a child born in a stable at midnight.

So if signs and miracles won’t convince us, how about wisdom?

We could use some wisdom.

In a time when we put all our eggs in the basket
of finance and wealth,
how about, “you cannot serve God and mammon”?

When we boast of our military might,
how we can reach anywhere,
strike anything, and defeat anyone,
how about “Peter, put your sword away!
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword”?

The Light that came into the world on Christmas
is not what we looked for.
Neither do we really understand it.

It’s power--but not the kind that impresses us,
such as the power of wealth, of fame, of technology and might.
It’s wisdom--but not the kind we produce.

So when God becomes a child
and when God allows himself to be crucified,
we don’t know what to make of it.

If you came today to hear the music, it is beautiful;
but the voices will soon fade.
If you came to see the lights, the manger,
it will all be packed away before long.
If you came to kindle a memory,
how melancholy to look backward!

Just like the first Christmas,
the Light we need is easy to miss.
Just as easy as missing the miracle
of His Death and Resurrection
being made present on this altar--in front of us.
His Body and Blood given as Food, right here.

We look for a miracle--
but the truth is, the Miracle is looking for you!

You’re here because He’s seeking you.

After I’m finished speaking, what will He say to you?

“I don’t need your wisdom, and I don’t want your power.
I want your heart.”

If what you want to see is a world lit up
with the hum and energy of human power and light,
we have that; a satellite will take the picture
and you can download it when you get home tonight!

But how about human hearts lit up by Christ’s light?
Purified by his mercy and set aflame by the Holy Spirit?
Human hearts: reservoirs of the peace only Christ can give?
Human hearts: fountains of mercy from the one who said,
“as you have been forgiven, forgive”?

Imagine a world filled with that Light?

Christ called you here tonight:
To see if your heart was available?

Where the Christmas Tree came from

2011-12-21T15:03:00.004-05:00

(This is a talk I gave today to the Piqua Kiwanis Club, of which I am a member.)

By now, if you put up a Christmas tree, you’ve already got it up. Actually, I have not! But I like to put it up this week, for reasons that will become clear shortly.

In any case, I bet you have heard different stories about the origin of the Christmas tree.

Some of you have heard the Christmas tree was a pagan thing that Christians “baptized” at some point--meaning they converted it from having a pagan meaning to having a Christian or at least innocuous meaning.

Some have heard that there is some connection between the Christmas Tree and Saint Boniface, who brought the Gospel to Germany.

How many simply have no idea where it came from?

In order to explain it, I have to explain something most people don’t know.

The Catholic Church assigns a day on the calendar for every saint, including saints of the Old Testament. So the Prophet Elijah is considered a saint, and his day is July 20. Moses’ day is September 4.

You may not know that Adam and Eve are also considered saints. Do you know what their day is?

December 24--Christmas Eve.

Now, I don’t know why December 24 is their day, but I would guess--and it’s only a guess--that it was done precisely as a lead-in to Christmas.

So let’s go back in history to approximately the year AD 1200. Let’s land in Europe, where many, if not most, of our ancestors came from, and where the search for the Christmas Tree takes us.

Remember, in the year 1200, there are very few books, because books must be copied by hand, which is time consuming and expensive. That’s why people didn’t read. It would be like saying, did you know in the year 1980, no one knew how to twitter? It’s true!

So…how do you teach people the Faith in those days? Well, you do what I bet Pastor Wells often does at his church--and we do in ours--we organize plays.

Just like today, a community would have celebrations through the year. What do we do in Piqua? We have festivals and parades and folks love to come, particularly with their kids. Some things never change.

They would do the same, but instead of Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day, they would gather on saints’ days and feast days. If they didn’t come into town to attend church every week, they’d come then.

And these would be great occasions to have plays to teach people the Faith. The plays would take place in the church, or the public square--and, naturally, they would be fun occasions for everyone to come together.

So, we’re in our time machine; let’s land in Germany--and imagine showing up for one of these plays; maybe some enterprising businessperson--like Peggy H____ or Gretchen R___--those are good German names!--is out selling bratwurst und streudel to feed the folks who came to the festival!

So here we are in December. And the mayor of the town--or the pastor--is organizing the celebration n of Adam and Eve day, December 24th. I’m not guessing about this, we know they did this.

But imagine you’re the person who is in charge of the play. The pastor says, “we need props for the play!” If you want a props for a play about Adam and Eve, what would you need?

How about a tree? What sort of tree are you going to find--that’s not bare--in December?

A fir tree!

Now, it is true that the story of Saint Boniface connects here. Saint Boniface, in preaching to my ancestors running around in the Black Forest, confronted those who worshipped trees. And when he saw them worshipping a mighty oak, he took an axe and brought it down, and said, “how stands your god now?” The story goes that because Thor didn’t strike him down, my great-great-great….grandfather and his brothers all listened as Boniface told them about Jesus Christ. And, the story goes, a fir tree sprung up in the place where the oak was felled.

So some claim that this is how the fir tree was involved; the trouble is, I don’t have any evidence for that. But we do know they had the plays; and we do know that, in December, in Germany, no other trees are green.

So you come back: "Hier ist ein tree!" "Gut, gut!” says the pastor. “Now, getten zome fruiten for das tree!"

Fruit? Why would you need fruit on this tree?

Adam and Eve, remember?

Now…Pastor Wells can tell us, what does Genesis say is the type of fruit on the Tree of knowledge of Good and Bad?

That’s right--the Bible just says “fruit.”

So, what fruit might you find in Germany in December? Well, nothing on trees, of course, but maybe in a basement? How about apples?

You may also be interested to know that in Latin--the Scriptures were in Latin then--the word for "bad" (as in "the tree of the knowledge of good and bad") is "malum"; and the word for apples, is "malum."

So while those are guesses about how apples came to be chosen, we do know apples were placed on the tree.

They also placed another decoration on the tree: discs of bread.

If you’re wondering why, recall that in the Garden of Eden, there were two trees mentioned by name. Not only the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but also, the Tree of Life. We know that they ate from the Tree of Knowledge; but there remained the Tree of Life--which they couldn’t eat from once they’d sinned.

And what they were attempting to teach was about the Eucharist--holy communion--being a sharing in the death of Christ; who, remember, died on a “tree”--it was Saint Paul who called the cross “a tree.“

So the “Paradise Tree,“ in these plays, was both trees in one, with the fruit that brought death, and the fruit that gives life!

Over many years, these plays were performed in Germany, but along the way they got out of hand--hmm, a play about Adam and Eve, with forbidden fruit? How could anyone take that the wrong way? So Church authorities called a halt to the plays. But folks liked the "Paradise Trees" so they continued setting them up--at home.

Now at this stage, the decorations gradually change; there are different stories about when glass ornaments came along--either in the 1500s or the 1800s. But what seems to have happened was that other fruit or nuts were placed on the trees, and along the way, the discs of bread were replaced by cookies. I’m curious: who here has, or has seen, cookies-baked to be very hard--as ornaments? How about fruit-shaped ornaments? I bet some of you even have apple-shaped ornaments; I have.

Who knows the story about the lights on the tree? The story usually told is that Martin Luther added candles; I couldn’t find any source for that, but I don’t have many Lutheran sources! My mother, who was born in 1914, remembered candles from her childhood. Has anyone here ever seen real candles on a tree?

So, with all this information, I think we can answer the claim made by some that the Christmas Tree is something pagan. It is not; it is Christian and Biblical--meant to point back to Adam and Eve, but also to Christ, and the Cross.

And when you enjoy looking at your Christmas Tree this year, think of the passage from Revelation, that describes the New Jerusalem, the City of God, with no sun or moon, because the Lamb is its light; and in the center, along the River of Life, is the Tree of Life, giving twelve kinds of fruit all twelve months of the year.

Sources:
“In Defense Of The Christmas Tree,” by the Very Rev. Daniel Daly, published in The Word Magazine, December 2002; accessed online at:
http://www.prescottorthodox.org/2010/12/in-defense-of-the-christmas-tree-2/.

“The Christmas Tree,” by Rayn Blair; appearing in Celebrations: a social studies resource guide for elementary teachers, Fall, 1996, published by Department of Elementary Education, College of Education, Utah State University; accessed online at: http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlresources/units/Byrnes-celebrations/christmas.html.

The Christmas Tree, by Daniel J. Foley, Chilton Co., 1960.

My day so far...

2011-12-18T15:42:00.003-05:00

Up at 6 am for 7 am Mass...

After 7 am Mass--with help from the seminarian--we began cooking eggs for parish breakfast. (I love eggs-in-a-bag! Real eggs, broken by elves somewhere, mixed and sealed in bags. All you have to do is boil them for a good while--about 1-1/2 to 2 hours. They need salt and pepper, and maybe a little fat or butter.) The seminarian kindly tended the eggs whilst I picked up the donuts, coffee and juice, quickly got myself some early breakfast, then had the next Mass...

...At which we received some folks as catechumens--meaning they are preparing for baptism at Easter. That is a ritual I don't do often so I had to review it a few minutes before 9 am Mass.

Mass went a little over; back to the other parish to finish preparing breakfast--slated for after 10:30 am Mass. We spread about 200 sausage links on trays and put them in the oven while the eggs finished up; we perked coffee and otherwise hung out till the end of the next Mass.

The seminarian and I served about 120-150 folks we think. I do this each year at this time at each parish. It's my gift to the parishes.

About 1 pm we served the last folks--some guys who set up the creche following Mass--and I sent the seminarian home with the leftover sausage and eggs and I finished cleaning up. Home around 2 pm.

I've been surfing the 'net for news since then; in a moment I'll head back to St. Boniface to meet with the junior high group; they are having some sort of pizza-competition.

At 6 I'm meeting with the high schoolers to go caroling. I'll have dinner around 8 pm, and that'll be when I can really rest.

Joy, as opposed to happiness (Sunday homily)

2011-12-10T17:00:00.001-05:00

There’s a word we hear in the prayers
and in the readings for Mass today:
“Rejoice.” We hear it a lot this time of year.

Sometimes we equate “joy” with being happy.
While they often go together, they aren’t the same.

The way we often figure this out
is when what makes us happy is taken away.

I remember being at the bedside
of one of our parishioners this year,
as she peacefully died.
She and her family were praying.
And when she passed, her husband of so many years,
who didn’t want to let her go,
yet knowing where she was headed;
still holding her hand—and with eyes brimming with tears,
said, and I quote: “I’m broken-hearted; but I’m joyful.”

And there it is.

“Happiness,” at any given moment,
we may or may not have.
But joy—true joy—isn’t a mood,
and isn’t a measure of the things we have.
True joy is a fruit of the Holy Spirit.

We all have the Gift of the Holy Spirit through baptism.
But we can easily take it for granted,
until everything else is at risk.

In the first reading,
Isaiah describes himself as anointed with the Spirit
to heal the broken-hearted
and to liberate those in bondage;
on one level, it’s about
his message to God’s People in his time;
but it’s even more about Jesus—
who liberates as no else can.

One of the most powerful ways to experience
that is in the sacrament of confession.
We’ll have our Penance Service
at St. Mary, this Tuesday, at 7 pm.

There’s no defeat or shame
like feeling bound up in a habit of sin.
And there’s no liberation
like having sins forgiven and gone!
And they really are taken away just that fast:
as fast as the priest speaks the words of absolution!

There are many things that are hard being a priest,
But this isn’t one of them.
This is one of the best things I get to do.
Passing out gold like St. Nicholas did doesn’t hold a candle
to assisting Jesus Christ as he takes away sin.

I get the privilege of witnessing that;
Some people will say they feel a tremendous freedom;
But even if the person gives no sign at all,
I’m telling you, sometimes I can just tell
That a tremendous weight has been lifted.

And I’m telling you:
guys, if you’re thinking about being a priest—
there is no Gift you’ll ever give anyone
anywhere as awesome as that.

There’ll be six priests here Tuesday night
giving out pure gold—for free!
Forgiveness! Come and get some!

This joy, that comes from the Holy Spirit,
Not only sustains in times of trouble,
But also makes it possible, even easy,
to do what otherwise would seem impossible.

As you know, this weekend we take up a collection
for our retired religious brothers and sisters.

When we look at those who take vows,
if we see only as the world sees,
it can be hard to figure out why they do it.
Voluntarily embrace poverty and chastity?
Work hard for others; take risks? Why do this?

I think of Sister Dorothy Stang, of Dayton,
who was trying to help the poor in Brazil,
she dismissed the threats, and finally they did kill her.
She didn’t care.

And I think of Father Saint Damian,
who served lepers in Hawaii,
until he died of the same disease.

What makes that possible?
The joy that only the Holy Spirit can give.

Of all the special collections we have through the year,
this one is the best received. And it’s obvious why.
The same Holy Spirit that works in our dear religious
rises up in our heart in gratitude.

So I ask you to be generous;
but I already know you will be.

So I come back to where I started.
“Happiness” as opposed to joy.

If your health is good, you have all you need,
you are surrounded by love and blessings—
you have every cause for happiness.

Even so, some around us don’t have all those things.
And if they lost someone special,
the ache is worse this time of year.
If “happy” isn’t a word you want to use right now…
that’s OK.

But know that with or without
what usually counts as “happy,”
the Holy Spirit is still yours.
That is the true joy that counts.

'It's not [only] about Mary' (Immaculate Conception)

2011-12-08T20:00:00.002-05:00

We often speak of the “mysteries” of our Faith.
There is a “mystery” in this particular Feast we celebrate today;
a “secret” that I’m going to share with you— that I hope you will try to reflect on.
Here’s the “secret”—are you ready?

This feast—of Mary’s immaculate conception— is not about Mary.
Or, I should say, there’s a lot more it’s about.

The first reading tells you this.
It reminds us of the moment, untold ages ago,
when the enemy of souls induced the human race to choose sin the first time.
That is when humanity was corrupted; shipwrecked.

Saint Paul, in his letter to the Romans, tells us that when humanity became corrupt,
it wasn’t just the human race that was damaged; all Creation was changed.

So the first thing this feast is about is sin: the infection that,
once it contaminated humanity and Creation, made this is a different world.

The second part of the mystery this feast is about is God’s plan.

If you listened closely, in the first reading, God said:
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”

At the very beginning, when humanity fell, God already was planning his response:
There would be another Eve, and her Son would do battle with the enemy for our sake.
That second Eve is Mary.

Now, there is a point of confusion.

The conception we celebrate today is not Jesus’ conception in Mary’s womb.
Do the math: how could Jesus be conceived on December 8, and born on December 25?
Jesus’s conception is celebrated on March 25: nine months before Christmas.

Today we celebrate the conception of Mary, in the womb of her mother, Ann.

Just as God created Eve without any stain of sin,
so he intervened to ensure that Mary, the Second Eve,
would also have no stain of sin: immaculate.

Although Jesus is the one who truly does battle for us—on the Cross;
in a real way, Mary also did battle for us.

Just as Eve said “yes” to the serpent, and allowed sin to enter Creation,
So Mary said “yes” to God, and allowed the Messiah to become part of Creation!

So many things to notice here!

Notice that what happened in Mary was God’s doing:
God is the one who prevented Original Sin from touching her.
So when we talk about God’s grace saving us— not we ourselves—Mary is exhibit A!

Mary being conceived without sin wasn’t absolutely necessary—
God could have found another way— but it was entirely fitting and appropriate.

How fitting that if God’s People would create, in the Old Testament,
a beautiful container, called the Ark of the Covenant, to carry the Ten Commandments;
then how much more fitting that God would prepare so beautiful a vessel for himself:
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant!

And how right that Mary, who would be the first to accept Jesus as Savior,
would be able to respond with perfect devotion— because no shadow of sin held her back!

As Saint Augustine said, she who conceived him in her womb,
first conceived her in her heart through faith.

I said at the outset that this Feast is only partly about Mary.
It’s about Jesus of course; and it’s about us.

When we see Adam and Eve fall, we cringe; because that’s our story.
Well, when we see Mary, full and radiant with grace,
our hearts surge with joy—because that’s our destiny!
Mary—all the saints really, but Mary above all— is a like a mirror:
We love her, among other things, because of how perfectly she reflects the glory of her Son.

And we are filled with hope, because we see in her what we can be.
All we have to do is say “yes.”

Christ asks, 'Comfort my people' (Sunday homily)

2011-12-03T17:00:00.000-05:00

If you have ever wondered why we get the readings we do,
in Advent, here’s why:

The first reading is a prophecy
and it describes what God’s people need
and what we have hoped for.

The Gospel shows us how that longing is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

So in Isaiah’s time, God’s people are in a bad way.
Depending on just when Isaiah said this,
either his people are facing the destruction of their country,
or else they are already in exile.

And God sends Isaiah to “comfort my people.”
They will be forgiven; and what’s high will be brought low;
what’s lowly will be lifted up.
In other words, it’s a promise of true justice.

In Isaiah’s time—and in ours—
People who down low, out in the cold,
look up and see the heights—and they wonder…

Then—and now—they wonder:
Can I be lifted up? Is there a way out?

Centuries later, John the Baptist comes,
And God’s people are still down low.
Now it’s the Romans who invade God’s City, Jerusalem—
To curry favor with the Roman overlords,
King Herod installed a Roman Eagle on the gate of God’s Temple.

Imagine our church were in Europe not too long ago;
and here come the Nazis and tell us:
put a swastika on the front of your church?

That’s what God’s People saw on God’s House
every time they worshipped.

God’s People were ready to be lifted up.

But John tells them something they may not have expected.
He doesn’t tell them, Christ is coming to destroy the Romans.
Christ will conquer—but not destroy.
And it starts in the heart—in your heart:
That’s where the path for the Lord begins.

It’s been a long time since John told us to seek that fire—
that conversion—
And there is still a lot of lifting up to do.
And there’s a lot changing in us still needed.

While we’re still waiting and asking, “When Lord?”
Christ is waiting for us—he invites us to do some of the lifting.

Let me apply this to a problem we face right here and now.
People who walk the streets and have no place to sleep at night.

We don’t huge numbers of homeless people in Piqua,
be we have some. Sometimes families with children.

And for some time, Wilma Earls and Cathy Large,
and others involved in the Bethany Center,
Have been trying to do something
about providing shelter at night.
There’s been talk of the Bethany Center becoming a shelter—
but that isn’t possible yet.

In the meantime, they’ve organized a “cold shelter” system
for the winter months,
for those who otherwise would sleep outside.

Several area churches are taking turns,
with a different church providing shelter each night of the week.

You may be wondering,
will St. Mary and St. Boniface be sites for this?

At the present time we’re not.
The pastoral councils and I are looking at it,
but there are some hurdles to overcome before we can do that.

In the meantime, other churches in Piqua are ready to go—
but they need volunteers!

Remember: it’s the Lord who is waiting to see what we’ll do.

We need volunteers to help welcome guests and check them in.
Some can help with preparing food or cleaning up;
some to stay overnight;
and some to put things in order in the morning.
And there are ways to help as well.

Not only is the Lord waiting o see what we will do,
Remember he told us, he’s the one waiting outside,
in the cold, for food and clothing and shelter.

And he told us, he’s also the one we don’t help,
who sleeps under a bridge in January.

Sometimes we make it complicated; we think of all the angles.
But in the end, it’s pretty simple.
We are confronted with Christ’s own words:
“Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers…”

So Christ is asking for this—not me.
What are we willing to do?

There’s a form in your pews, along with a pencil,
where you can say, I’m willing to consider it;
I am willing to be contacted with more information.

If you put your name and address down,
And put it in the collection basket,
it doesn’t mean you’ve promised anything;
it only means you’re willing to hear more.

There’s still a lot of God’s promises that need to be kept—
to comfort his people.

Christ is waiting for us—and calling us—to help him do it.

Updated links...

2011-11-28T13:00:00.001-05:00

OK, you can trust my link section now; I cleaned it up and updated connections.

It had been awhile; and I was surprised to find so many were still active!

To Jesus Christ our Sovereign King

2011-11-21T10:37:00.002-05:00

The feast of Christ the King occasions use of one of my favorite hymns: "To Jesus Christ our Sovereign King." The story behind this hymn is powerful, it needs to be better known, if only because it is likely to bear on our near future.

At one time, I'd found articles about the late Monsignor Martin Hellreigel, who wrote this hymn in 1941. But just now, attempting to find them again, I am coming up with blanks. So permit me to summarize both from memory and from what bits and pieces I found online.

Father Hellreigel was a German immigrant to the U.S. as a child. He was ordained a priest for the Precious Blood congregation in 1914. At one time, I mistakenly thought he was in Germany at the time he composed this hymn; in fact, he was in St. Louis! But it was composed in 1941, at the height of the peril from fascism that makes ideology a god. And of course, we know how many millions of lives were sacrificed to that god.

Monsignor Hellreigel was in anguish about what was happening in his homeland when he composed his hymn.

I invite you to read or listen to the lyrics of that hymn, recognizing in them a rebuttal to Nazism, Fascism, and every other "ism" that exults itself against God--and over humanity:

To Jesus Christ, our Sov'reign King,
Who is the world's salvation,
All praise and homage do we bring,
And thanks and adoration.

Refrain:
Christ Jesus Victor, Christ Jesus Ruler!
Christ Jesus, Lord and Redeemer!

2. Thy reign extend, O King benign,
To ev'ry land and nation,
For in Thy kingdom, Lord divine,
Alone we find salvation.
(Refrain)

3. To Thee and to Thy Church, great King,
We pledge our hearts' oblation,
Until before Thy throne we sing,
In endless jubilation.

In our time, sadly our own governments in the United States are setting themselves against Jesus Christ. In two states and in several municipalities, the Catholic Church has been driven out of adoptions. The Obama Administration is seeking to force Catholic institutions to distribute contraceptives and provide early abortions, under the guise of so-called contraceptions. We have politicians in both parties who rename torture and advocate its use. Whatever it takes to defeat our enemies.

You and I, dear reader, are less and less treated as sovereign citizens, and more as subjects. If you fly anywhere, you have the privilege of being treated like cattle--but you better not object, or else worse will happen to you. When citizens take photographs or videos of the police, in many jurisdictions, they are arrested. The government wants to place tracking devices on our cars, without warrant. In various jurisdictions, the "Occupy" protesters--many of whom have behaved very badly--have been dispersed with high-handed tactics by the police. And our President is arguing, in our courts, for the view that the Constitution allows the regulation not only of economic activity, but the mandate of the same. No one has reasonably shown how, if the government can mandate you and me to purchase insurance, it cannot regulate virtually all our "economic" activity and decisions.

But none of them--neither party, no system, no government program, no function of the market, is the world's salvation. Only Jesus Christ! Viva Christo Rey!

'For you and for many' (Homily 5 on new Mass translation)

2011-11-19T18:00:00.000-05:00

Next week, as you know, we begin using
the new translation of the Mass.
Today I want to look at the one change
that I know has a lot of people talking.
If it’s misunderstood, which will be easy to do,
it will cause some concern.

In the Eucharistic Prayer,
we are all familiar with the words the priest says,
when he holds the cup of wine:
“this is the cup of my blood—
the blood of the new and everlasting covenant,
it will be shed for you…”

In the outgoing translation, it goes on to say,
“…and for all.”
In the new translation, it says, “for you and for many.”

That certainly raises a lot of questions.
There’s more going here, so let’s dig into it.

We have to go back to the Scriptures to understand this.
The fact is, this is what the Gospels say
Jesus said at the Last Supper.

Listen to what Matthew wrote,
which we read on Palm Sunday:
“this is my blood of the covenant,
which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.’”
The Gospel of Mark has very similar words.

Now, some might ask,
are the words in the Bible, in Greek,
hard to translate? Is the Latin of the Mass prayers ambiguous?
They really aren’t.

And, for those who are interested in more detail on this,
I prepared a handout which is in the bulletin today.

But before we go any further,
let’s stop and realize why it is that “many”
sounds bad to us.
It’s only because we’re contrasting it with “all.”

If at first I tell you, you get to have “all” the cookies—
but then I tell you, no, you get to have “many”—
that sounds like a step down.

But take the word “all” out of the picture.
If the word “all” had never been used in the first place,
there’s no reason for “many” to sound bad to us.
Because the natural and logical counterpoint to “many” is what? How about “few”?

And that is the very question—regarding salvation—
that comes up so often in Scripture!

At one point, the disciples asked:
“Lord, will only a few people be saved?”
That was what everyone was asking:
is salvation only for a handful?
Can only the rich be saved?
Can only the Jews be saved? Is it only a few?

And the Lord’s words at the Last Supper are his rebuttal:
“for many.”

Even so, the Lord could have said “all.” So, why didn’t he?

First, while it is true that Jesus’ death
is available for all people, if they respond,
that doesn’t mean all people are guaranteed heaven.

The Gospel we heard is pretty stark:
if we don’t live as Jesus commands,
we risk being sent to the Lord’s left—with the goats.

We have no idea who or how many will,
ultimately, be saved.
It’s certainly less concerning
if we assume salvation is easy,
and everyone, or nearly everyone, makes it.
That’s the downside of the translation we’ve been using.
In any case, whoever is saved, it won’t be “few”!
Many times the Lord makes clear
that they will come from
“east and west, north and south.”
The “many” will be vast number;
the Book of Revelation says an uncountable multitude.

But there’s something more here.
One of the things the Lord was mindful of
was the Old Testament passages that foresaw
his coming as Messiah.

And none are more vivid than what Isaiah said
about God’s “servant,” “the just one,”
whose suffering and death “shall justify the many.”
This phrase appears several times in Isaiah’s prophecies.

In other words, this is about fulfilling those prophecies.
Not only did the Lord himself know the prophecies—
he realized his disciples knew them too.

He was extremely mindful,
especially on Holy Thursday and Good Friday,
of how his actions would fulfill those passages.

Recall when Peter pulled out his sword, Jesus said,
“Put back your sword…
Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father
and he will not provide me
with more than twelve legions of angels?
But then how would the scriptures be fulfilled
which say that it must come to pass in this way?”

So at the Last Supper, the Lord was determined
that even his choice of words
should fulfill the words of Isaiah.
Ever the Good Shepherd,
Jesus wanted us not to have the least cause for doubt
that he is truly our Messiah!
As we say in the Creed: “in fulfillment of the Scriptures.”

This is our last weekend using the old translation.
When you come to Mass next weekend,
you’ll hear it all the first time,
and we’ll all pray the it together for the first time.
It will sound somewhat different, and for awhile,
that’s what we’ll notice. But it’s the same Mass.

Remember, the Lord said,
“do this in remembrance of me.”
In the end, we are attempting, as best we can,
to carry out the Mass faithfully.

Faithful to what the Church teaches us,
faithful to prayers that were handed down
from the early Church,
faithful to the texts of the Bible,
and faithful even to Jesus’ own choice of words.

Sometimes—as in this case—
we find the Lord’s words jarring.
But we don’t paper them over.
We recall just what he said, the way he said it.

If they make us ponder, so much the better.

Penn State: What are they thinking?

2011-11-18T14:08:00.003-05:00

I hesitated to post on this because of the potential for cheap shots, but here goes...

When I read the grand jury information that was published about the now infamous scandal involving a former coach at Penn State University, I got pretty angry, as we all did.

But I had an additional reason to be frustrated: why, even in the last ten years (when much of this abuse happened), are people still, seemingly, clueless about obvious warning signs and boundary violations?

According to the grand jury information:

> The coach--Sandusky--was hosting boys overnight in his home.
> He was traveling alone with boys.
> Individual boys were seen in his company frequently, including at picnics, parties, football games and other events.
> He was working out with individual boys and showering with them.

Before we even get to the allegations of abuse and assault and rape, these items right here should have been and should be immediate red flags.

Speaking for myself, nothing like this happens, or should happen, with any priest. God knows the Church, and priests, will have a black eye for decades to come because of the terrible crimes of a few priests, and the failure of oversight of too many bishops.

Folks should know that--at least in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati--the situation has changed drastically:

> I am obliged never to be alone with children, the only exception being when hearing confessions. When it happens inadvertently--say kids are getting ready to serve Mass and no other adult is around--I go and stand in the doorway of the sacristy so folks attending Mass can see me, even if I'm putting on a vestment at that time.

> I never enter the bathrooms in the school anytime there are children in the building; if I do, I'll use the faculty bathroom only.

> When invited by family and friends to stay at their homes when traveling, if they have children under 18 I decline. And because I don't want them to misunderstand, I have explained it to the parents. Some of them have been angry, not at me, but at the rule being so strict. I'm not sure that every priest would take it that way, but I asked the chancellor about it and he agreed with my understanding of the rule.

> Children are almost never in my home. The exceptions are when they come with a parent, or when children stop by on Hallowe'en. When they do, I never pass out the candy, I have a couple from the parish do it.

> Similarly, other adults, either employees or volunteers, must likewise observe very similar rules about not being alone with children.

> All employees or volunteers who work with children must undergo a fingerprinting and background check, including clergy. This must be renewed periodically. We spend a fair amount of money and a lot of time keeping track of all this.

> All employees or volunteers who work with children must take part in an orientation about these rules, including their responsibility to report any information about possible harm to a child, in any setting, past or present. I have made several reports, or had staff do so (if they received the information directly). We are very careful about it. In practice, because no one wants to err and fail to report something, we report even rather sketchy information, that I cannot imagine is any help to law enforcement. That said, there is a constant concern that something will be omitted, and a harm will continue.

> Related to that last point, I had a situation where this came up in the midst of counseling an individual. The individual had come to me to seek advice on this very subject. Because the law, and the Archdiocese, require me to report what they told me--and yet, they had come to talk to me expecting confidentiality--I saw no choice but, at that very moment, to advise the folks that I would have to report what they told me. Sadly, they clammed up and shared no more about it. I never saw them again. The situation involved another family member they believed was harming a child. I did what I had to do and I'm not second-guessing it; however, please note that, in that instance, my role as a counselor to this family ended as a result. They chose to say no more, knowing that I was bound to disclose information to law enforcement.

Anyway, that's a sampling of what Archdiocesan volunteers, clergy and employees deal with--our awareness. I'm still wondering what folks are thinking up there in Happy Valley?

Parents, please: if your son or daughter tells you about going on trips or going to the gym with a single adult, isn't that odd to you? Staying overnight in the adult's house? Don't you hear a bell going off?

Ok, in this case, the parents were absent. But who, at these public events, seeing this grown man with ten- or 12-year old boys going around with him, doesn't think that is odd? I never do this; who does this? Is this happening all the time and I'm not aware of it?

If you go to the Y, and you know there's an adult male who is bringing in boys not related to him, doesn't that set off an alarm bell? Coaches come through locker rooms at schools, and when I was boy, and we went to the pool, we changed and showered in a locker room with other boys and men around--but there were lots of people around, it wasn't solitary.

In the grand jury information--which is likely incomplete and probably not all accurate--there was one parent who, when her son came home with wet hair, did the exact right thing. She asked, "why is your hair wet?" When her son told her he'd been showering with the coach, the parent got upset (rightly--because that wasn't part of the plan) and started asking more questions.

Parents, I'm not excusing myself from my own responsibility, to observe good boundaries, and to be watchful. But I do think some of these things could be prevented if parents asked more questions. "Whose house do you want to stay overnight at?"

Let me know what you think.

The treasures of Scripture in the Mass (#4 Homily on new translation)

2011-11-12T17:00:00.001-05:00

We continue to look at the new translation of the Mass,
which we will start using in full in just two weeks.
Once again, I’d invite you to take out the red booklets in your pews
as we look at some of the prayers, and see how they have changed, and why.

Take a look at page one—where it says “Penitential Act”—
you’ll see the prayer we call the Confiteor.

How does it change?

The translators restored, to the English version of this prayer,
a line that was always in the Latin: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa;
in English, that translates,
“through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.”

As Mass prayers go, this is relatively new—only 900 years old!

You might recall that our Lord told the story of a Pharisee and a tax collector,
praying in the temple.

The Pharisee was proud of his spiritual accomplishments;
but the tax collector “stood off at a distance
and would not even raise his eyes to heaven
but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’”
But remember it was the tax collector who went home justified,
because he humbled himself.
I think part of the reason this prayer includes that very gesture,
of striking our own chest, is to help us remember the Lord’s words.

You might wonder why Mass begins with an act of penance—
either this, or one of the others.

The reason is because when we enter the Mass,
we’re entering spiritually into the Holy of Holies—
the true sacrifice of the Lord himself, which he offers for us.
The Mass makes no sense unless we recognize our need for salvation.

Let me highlight another change in the prayers,
which you’ll find on pages 14 and 15.

First, look at what the priest says—it changes a little:

“Behold, the Lamb of God”…this is when the priest holds up the Body and Blood.
The Host—the Lamb of Sacrifice—has been broken.
This is what John the Baptist said when Jesus came to be baptized:
behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.
“Behold” is a good word: because it means to hold in ones gaze—
we don’t just glance at the Lamb,
we fix our gaze on him, especially in that he died for us.

Notice the response we all say together will change:

“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…”

That, too, is a Scripture passage.
Recall when the Roman soldier asked Jesus to come and heal his servant,
these are his words.
But now we ask not that a servant be healed, but that our soul be healed.

Again, it makes crystal clear why we need the Eucharist:
to heal our sinfulness in anticipation of heaven.

As you can see, the revised translation is bringing back
to the surface the Scriptural images that are in the Latin,
but which were not so clear in the English we’ve been used to.

You’ll hear the same thing in the prayers the priest will say,
such as the Eucharistic Prayer, or in other prayers the priest uses.

One of the things the Second Vatican Council wanted to happen
was to enable all of us to have more of the treasures of Scripture
shared with us more through the Mass.
One way to do that was to have more Scripture read at Mass;
but having the prayers of Mass translated into English in this way,
so we can more easily recognize those Scriptural images, helps as well.

The Gospel today talks about the Lord’s servants being given “talents.”

Remember, by “talent” the Gospel doesn’t mean our abilities,
such as singing or painting;
in the Lord’s time, a “talent” was a unit of weight,
and when applied to gold or silver, it meant an amount of money.
A talent was approximately 57 pounds—in silver coins,
that is the equivalent of nine years of wages!
Thus, five talents would be 45 years of earnings, a huge amount.

So this isn’t even about money either; instead its about spiritual wealth:
the supernatural gifts God gives us.
The point is, God gives us his supernatural help very generously.

What are these supernatural riches?
Speaking broadly, they are all the graces God gives us, in the Holy Spirit,
to seek him, to be forgiven, to be changed, and to be kept close to him.

As in the Gospel passage, the more we share God’s riches,
we don’t lose—we gain. We grow richer.
The only one who ends up with nothing
is the one who tries to hoard his treasure, rather than put it to use.

We’ve been talking about the details of the Mass—
which is our greatest treasure.
We “invest” that treasure in other people—
by helping them experience it.
Maybe during this Mass, you might think—and pray for—
those people you want to invite to come, next week?

What is this?

2011-11-06T21:35:00.002-05:00

I just got home from having dinner; I like to go out for dinner on Sunday night--the end of my week. I flipped on the TV, having no idea what channel it would be.

I'm checking things on my laptop while something comes on the TV. I look up, listening, watching with disbelief...what is this?

I mash the clicker so it tells me what channel and show it is. "Desperate Housewives." Mmm-hmm. Never watch it. Not starting tonight. Explains everything.

Changed channel to some mindless but not overly offensive, silly movie: "Day After Tomorrow." Any port in a storm. Maybe I'll find a football game?

"Desperate Housewives." Our culture is insane. Sad. We used to have a culture. It's almost 1o pm on Sunday. Too late to dwell on it. Our Catholic schools need to inculcate our next generation in the culture we used to have. Parents? Teach your children well.

'Consubstantial' (Homily 3 on the new Mass translation)

2011-11-05T18:00:00.002-04:00

As we continue to prepare for our new Mass translation,
Let’s look at the Creed we profess every Sunday.
If you take out those red books,
we can look on page 5
and see what’s different.

The first thing you’ll notice is we’ll now say “I believe,”
not “we believe.”

The reason for that change
is that it emphasizes that not only is this Creed
something we say together,
it is also something personal for each one of us.

Then, scan down to where it says to bow.
Notice the wording changes to,
“was incarnate of the Virgin Mary”;
it used to say, “was born of the Virgin Mary.”

Why this change?
Well, because what we’ve been using was inaccurate;
The point the Creed makes is not about when Jesus was born,
but the fact that he became human through Mary—
which, obviously, happened before his birth:
in fact, when he was conceived, nine months before.

Now, let’s focus on a change that has gotten a lot of attention.
Scan up a four lines, and you’ll see the word, “consubstantial.”
That replaces “one in being.”

This change has raised some hackles.
Some object it’s a hard word to understand;
but that can’t be helped:
it’s describing a reality that’s just as hard to understand.

Now what I’m going to say here is kind of heavy.
Please bear with me.
This is one of the most profound mysteries of our Faith,
so it’s supposed to be hard stuff.

This Creed was adopted by the Council of Nicea in AD 325.
They had a particular thing they wanted to say
about God’s true nature.
They prayed and debated over key words—
and this was one of them.
The thing is, what they were trying to say
is just doggone hard to say.

So why isn’t “one in being” good enough?
The problem is not that it’s false, but that it’s not precise.

It’s not a stretch to imagine describing two ordinary human beings—
say, two spouses—as “being one” or “one in being.”

Consubstantial means something much more specific than that.
It’s describing a reality that only applies to God.
It means that what the Father is—as God—the Son is too.
But not two “substances”; but only one.

So, when two spouses become “one,”
they don’t cease to be separate human beings.
However close they are, they aren’t one
in the way that only God, himself, can be “one.”
The bishops at the Council—struggling for the right word—
were trying to say this: whatever God is, there’s only one;
and the Son is that one and same reality.

The issue, back then, was whether Jesus is God.

And even if you call Jesus “God,” what do you mean?
Is he “sort of” God? Is he a kind of a junior God?

Even to this day, a lot folks take “Son of God” to mean
that Jesus is somehow less than God the Father.

Notice how people will say, “God and Jesus.”

So the Creed was intended to make as clear as a bell
that Jesus truly, really and totally is God.

What the Father is, as God, the Son is too.
One and the same—to the nth degree.

OK, so what’s that mean to us?

It has to do with what our eternal hope is.
Paul told us in the second reading,
the goal of our Faith is to be with Jesus forever.

If Jesus is not God—why is he our hope?

If he is only near God—
that means “near” is as close as we’ll ever come.

But here’s the truth the Creed tells us:
When we become one with Christ through baptism,
and we stay with Christ through our life,
and we go to be with him in eternity,
our destination isn’t somewhere in the “neighborhood” of God.
We’re not going to be in the cheap seats!

Our future “home address” is the heart of the Son—
which is also the “consubstantial,” one and same
heart of the Father.

Another practical application:
for everyone who wonders why we Catholics
make such a huge deal about the Eucharist: here it is.

Our “communion”—union with—is with Jesus himself.
And this Creed tells us, that is also union with God the Father.
Every time we are at Mass, we are challenged to ask ourselves:
am I ready for this? Have I fasted?
Do I believe what the Church teaches me?
Do I live as a Catholic?
Have I confessed my sins?
Am I at peace with my neighbors?
Am I ready to say, “I believe?”

New Missals arrived today!

2011-11-04T17:57:00.000-04:00

Oh what a relief!

I ordered six new missals--the book of prayers used at the altar by the priest for Mass--several months ago. At that time, the expectation was delivery in October. When October was almost out of days, I emailed Magnificat, and got a cryptic, worrying reply, to the effect of, we're looking for our delivery from the printers soon, then we'll ship them out as we can...

So as soon as I got word that the box had arrived, I scurried downstairs like a boy on Christmas day.

I invited the staff to "come see the new missals"; I ripped open the box, to find...

Those styrofoam peanuts--what do you do with those?

We cleared those out...another box. And inside there: our six, new, "chapel edition" missals.

In case you're wondering, the chapel editions are smaller and less expensive; I decided I would hold off investing in larger, more elegant missals, until I could see them for myself, and to wait and see how things shake out. For example, would there be printer's errors, in the rush to get things ready? Would there be second thoughts about how things were done, once we all started using the missals?

While I'm not complaining about the missals that arrived, I can already say I'm glad I did that. Having seen this missal, I can see features that I'm not sure I will prefer; now that all the publishers' missals are available for inspection, I will be able to make a better judgment.

OK, so what do I think about the new missal?

> It's a lot thicker; my assistant isn't sure it will fit in the Mass kit.

> The pages are thin; I wonder how that will work out for turning.

> This chapel edition gives me tabs to affix; they aren't very substantial so I don't expect them to last. I've affixed the tabs to one edition; I'm thinking about looking for tabs I can buy that might work better.

> There aren't enough tabs. As much as it pains me to say a good word about Catholic Book Publishing's outgoing "sacramentary," it did have a series of tabs for the Eucharistic prayers. This is helpful because it makes turning the pages much easier.

Also, this edition will involve more page-turning during the Eucharistic prayer, which is not ideal. I predict that the 2nd Eucharistic Prayer will get more use, because it involves the fewest page turns.

I will be interested to see, with the larger editions, if there are fewer page-turns.

> The artwork in this Magnificat edition is very good. It's simpler than in the higher-price "altar" edition, but there's nothing wrong with this artwork. It's one-color, but very pleasing to the eyes. Some of the other editions had jarring artwork that, when it combined black and red, seemed cartoonish.

> There is more music and that is good. I think some were hoping all the collects for Sundays would be notated for music, but in this edition they are not (are they in any missal?).

> The prayers are organized in some different ways, but so far I think it will work fine.

> I am not happy that Latin was omitted. It would cost about $400-500 to buy a Latin missal, and then it would be necessary to flip from one to the other, in order to offer Mass with the ordinary parts in Latin, but the proper parts in English--which is not only something envisioned by Vatican II, but a very sensible way to use both the vernacular and the Church's own language. I am planning to salvage the Latin pages from the old missals, and create a booklet for this purpose; but unless I have it bound, it will look flimsy and cheap on the altar.

> There are some prayers that have odd wording, and I wonder if anything can be done about it. I think the overall work is very good, a major improvement. Nevertheless, some things make me wonder: did native-English speakers carefully read--aloud--each of these prayers?

Here's an example, and perhaps someone can tell me, yes, this is proper English:

(for St. Bede, May 25...)

"O God, who bring light to your Church through the learning of the priest Saint Bede..."

Why shouldn't that be, "who brings..."

Is that the long-lost subjunctive mood? I'll have to look that up...

Here's one "For the Election or Enrollment of Names"--i.e., when those preparing for baptism at Easter are accepted, by the bishop, as Elect:

"O God, who though you ever the cause of the salvation of the human race now gladden your people with grace in still greater measure, look mercifully, we pray, upon your chosen ones..."

"Who though you"?

I am not working from the Latin, but I suspect it is trying to say something like:

"O God, you are already the only and ever cause of the salvation of the human race; and now you gladden your people with grace..." etc.

Or is it:

O God, who--although you are the cause..."?

I was trying to figure out how to chant it; then I had a happy realization: only the bishop offers this particular Mass! Let him figure it out!

> I was hoping that all the special "inserts" for the Eucharistic prayers--those that are usable when there is a baptism, or a marriage, for example--would all be placed with the Eucharistic prayer; but in this edition they aren't all, only some. This is actually no change from before; and it's understandable--as noted above, there are already a lot of page-turns, and this would make more. In short, there's no way to square the circle.

> The proper of saints seems to have more proper prayers and texts for the saints, which is good.

> A good change: the Gospel proclaimed at the beginning of Palm Sunday is included in the missal; this will make things easier for priests at that Mass. Good job!

> Some of the rubrics, I'm noticing, are clearer than I recall them being in the outgoing missal. For example, the rubric for the priest's gesture during the nuptial blessing was ambiguous: is he merely extending his hands upward, in the usual "orans" posture; or is he extending his hands over the couple? The latter, in the new missal.

Well, I could go on, but I'll stop there. I'm enjoying flipping through this! I'm glad they are here!

Today's my feast day! (Except in my own diocese!)

2011-11-03T13:18:00.004-04:00

Today is my feast day...

Except in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati!

Today, on the universal calendar, is the memorial of the ever-glorious and always-admirable St. Martin de Porres.

And yet, today--in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati--is the day we recall the dedication of Saint Peter in Chains Cathedral! Persuant to church law, that occasion is a solemnity in the cathedral (as is the case for the dedication of any church, in that church), and a feast for the rest of the Archdiocese.

That Feast, as notable as it is, takes precedence over St. Martin--who, being humble and of sweet nature, is I'm sure eager to cede the day to the remembrance of the dedication of God's Temple in Cincinnati.

But I have a secret plan (which actually I've been following for several years)...

As church law allows for a votive Mass, to any saint, on a "ferial day"--that is, a day for which no other feast or memorial is assigned, then next Tuesday will be "St. Martin de Porres day" hereabouts--I'll offer a votive Mass, and pray a votive office, in his honor.

Meanwhile, if you are situated beyond the 19 counties that comprise the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, then you are currently celebrating St. Martin's Day--which means, of course, you are far too busy with parades, parties and other suitable festivities even to notice this post! Don't overdo it!

And, if you are uncertain how to mark St. Martin's Day, remember that St. Martin is the patron of social justice, and he is also renowned for begging food for the poor.

'And with your spirit' (Homily 2 on the new translation)

2011-10-29T17:00:00.000-04:00

As you know, we’re doing a series of homilies
the next few weeks on the new translation of the Mass.

If you pick up the red booklets in your pews,
we can take a look at one of the changes
that everyone will notice—
and which we may stumble over at first.

It’s right on page 1. The priest says, “The Lord be with you”;
and the people respond: “And with your spirit.”

Why the change? Well, there’s a lot to this.

First, of course, this is straight from the Latin,
which some of you remember:
Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo.
“And with your spirit.”

OK, but why did they say this in Latin?
It comes from the early church.

We aren’t sure where they got it;
however, it is a phrase that St. Paul uses several times
in the New Testament.
For example, in his second letter to St. Timothy,
he said: “The Lord be with your spirit.”

We do know what they thought it meant.

According to St. John Chrysostom,
this acknowledges the presence of the Holy Spirit
overshadowing the whole assembly—
and acting in a special way in the priest.

The same dialogue happens again when the priest approaches the altar—
you’ll see that on page 10 of these booklets.

And here’s what St. John said about that:
when the priest “stands at this holy altar to offer the sacrifice…
he does not touch” what lies on the altar
“before wishing you the grace of our Lord,
and before you have replied to him, ‘And with your spirit.'”

See that? The idea being
that only with the Holy Spirit does any of this have meaning—
and that’s exactly right.

Of course, the priest and people exchange this greeting once more,
at the end of Mass, before the blessing:
making the point that it is Christ himself who blesses you.

Now let’s connect this to what our Lord said in the Gospel.
But first I have to explain what this Gospel is NOT about.

It’s not about whether a title is good or bad.
Jesus did not object to calling your teacher, “teacher”;
he didn’t object to calling your dad—or your priest—“father.”

No, the Lord is telling us not to focus on the human being;
and not to accept that focus.
And that applies to the Mass.

Let’s look at one more change that goes along with this.

On page 9, right in the middle,
you’ll see what the priest says to you,
right after the bread and wine come to the altar.
The change is that the priest will say,
“my sacrifice and yours”—instead of “our” sacrifice.

Again, why the change?

It makes the point once more:
the priest approaches the altar not on his own steam,
but because he was ordained
to be a priest for Christ and for you.

When the priest says, “my” sacrifice, it reflects this.
And because being a priest means
being united to Christ in a particular way,
it is Jesus himself who says, “my sacrifice.”

Then the priest says, “your” sacrifice.

It’s what our Lord told us about the Cross.
He took up the Cross in a unique way—
dying for us so we could live forever.

But then he says to us: “take up your cross.”
He invites us to bring all our troubles,
our trials, yes even things very unworthy—
but when we give them to him,
he will make them of infinite value!

We often talk about “participation” in Mass,
but there is sometimes a misunderstanding.

Sometimes we talk as though
what really counts is whether we’re doing something:
singing, reading, bringing the gifts forward, and so forth.

As good as these things are,
they don’t determine whether people are truly “participating.”
Folks who sit silently—but intently—are surely participating too.
They may even be participating better than any of us.
Who can say?

Because the key participation is right here in this prayer:
joining our hearts and lives—warts and all—in the sacrifice;
offering them as our personal sacrifice.

That moment of the Mass—which will happen shortly—
is an excellent time to do just that:
in prayer, lay on the altar all the cares and troubles,
all the people you pray for, all the sins that trip you up.
Don’t be afraid of offering anything as part of your sacrifice. Jesus takes it all!

My week so far...

2011-10-28T15:03:00.003-04:00

Here's how the week has gone...

Monday is my usual day off. I had a talk with 9th graders in the afternoon, on "moral decision-making," and a talk in the evening with RCIA, also on morality.

Tuesday I had Mass with the younger schoolchildren and the usual run of calls, messages and items in the office. My desk didn't improve much. I had a meeting in the evening. Dinner around 9, with youth director, home by 10:30 pm.

Wednesday I had both the morning and evening Mass; canon law says a priest should say but one Mass a day, a second in necessary cases. In this case, the retired priest who is with me was in the hospital, and I don't want to overtax the other retired priest in the parish. Usual stuff all day; finalized my homily, loaded it here so it'll publish Saturday; printed out two copies, one for each church sacristy; confessions before second Mass, Bible study followed; spent some time with parishioners at a nearby restaurant. Home by 10:30 pm.

Thursday I had the nursing home Mass. When I arrived they weren't ready; the two usual spots were taken, so we ended up setting up a table in a hall for Mass. After Mass back to the office. Got a lot done this day. Got a call about a death, likely funeral on Monday, had to wait for call back to confirm, which came around 6:30 pm. Had to call bereavement volunteer who will meet with family to plan details. Already have another funeral on Monday, with retired priest; if he gets sick we have trouble as funerals are simultaneous (he's been ill lately). Pastoral Council meeting at 7; that went well, accomplished a lot, finished by 8:30 pm. A member suggested getting some dinner so we did. Home by 10:30 pm.

Can't recall which days I did them, but this week I wrote a letter to send to folks at one parish, asking to volunteer for bingo. Wrote another letter for folks who belong to a "Seven-dollar-a-month" club which raises money for religious education, RCIA and adult faith formation. I also wrote up a plan, to present to pastoral council, about how we can get better volunteer participation. Those all took awhile.

Today: Mass with older schoolchildren, got some breakfast right after and took it to the office. More work at my desk (it's been a terrible mess). Now that I think about it, this week I also spent some time on upcoming Mass schedules, with calls to priests needed for help; a priest called me about helping in January with a class at Lehman, etc. Piled a lot of stuff in my outbox for the staff--I call them "presents"; wrote a talk for Monday for RCIA on Tradition. Chilling a bit before I go down to Trotwood to meet another priest for dinner. Maybe I'll write my homily for All Saints over the weekend? Not now!

Writing and now publishing this post...

Homily 1: how we got the new translation

2011-10-22T17:00:00.000-04:00

In about a month, all Catholics in the U.S.—
and in other English-speaking countries—
will begin using a new translation of Mass prayers.

And for the next few weeks,
all the priests here in Piqua are going to talk about this in their homilies.
If you know people who have questions,
maybe bring them to Mass the next few weeks.

Let me provide some history, first ancient, then recent.

While the Eucharist was celebrated in some form right away by the Apostles,
“the Mass” as we know it largely took shape between 4th and 6th century.
And while the first Catholics in Rome probably celebrated the Eucharist in Greek,
it wasn’t long before they began using Latin;
Latin has been the prayer of Roman Catholics for about 1,700 years.

Now skip ahead to 50 years ago.
Blessed Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council.
The bishops did two things that are relevant here.
First, they gave the OK to use local languages in the Mass.
Second, they called for some revisions in the form of the Mass.

So, once the Council ended, the pope asked experts to carry this out.
The Mass as we know it was revised;
and then that revised Mass—still in Latin—
was then translated quickly into lots of languages, including English.

At the time, they expected to revise their work eventually.

One of the things folks are asking is,
does our new translation mean the Mass in English,
that we’ve gotten used to, is “bad”? Have we been praying badly?

I wouldn’t say “bad”—how about this instead?

When I was in high school and college, I wrote a lot of papers.
I used a typewriter. It worked great. I was very comfortable with it.
Then along came the computer.
Even though it took some adjustments,
I was happy to have something that gave me even more advantages.

One of the notable changes is that the new translation has a different style.
Why is that?

In the 1990s, Blessed Pope John Paul laid out guidance
for how to approach the new translation.

When translating something, there are two extremes:
a very literal translation, and at the other end of the spectrum,
a loose paraphrase.
Neither extreme is what you want.

The outgoing translation was more on the “freestyle” side.
It tended to use very ordinary language.
That has benefits, but also drawbacks.

Some people will say they prefer the Mass in a common style of language.

But through our entire history, back to the Bible,
the language of worship has always had a special character—
its own vocabulary and careful ritual.

The Latin texts of the Mass, after they were revised, after Vatican II,
continue to have a formal, elevated style.
This is something the new translation will bring out more.

There are times to use casual English;
and there are times to use a more formal style.
Similarly, we have occasions when we use rituals, and we take them seriously.

Think of when the flag goes up and the National Anthem is sung.

If anything, as our culture has gotten much more casual overall,
we can see the value of stepping out of that,
so that when we do something that is fundamentally different,
it sounds and feels different.

One of the benefits of a more direct translation
is that it also brings out, better, the Biblical images and language
that were always included in the prayers of Mass.

You’ll notice phrases in the newly translated prayers
that echo the familiar Scripture readings at Mass.

Also, the new translation does bring out more
the Roman character of our prayers.
Why is that valuable?

After all, when we call ourselves Roman Catholics,
that one, added word, expresses a long and vivid story
of how we came to be who we are.

Even if we don’t know that story,
it’s our story and it is part of us,
all the way back to Peter and Paul arriving in Rome—
and all that happened since.

This is our spiritual genealogy.
It’s worthwhile to keep it alive and become more familiar with it.

In the Gospel, the Lord teaches us the two commandments
on which everything rests: love God, and care for all his children.
They aren’t at odds; they go together.

We give God our best. Not because he needs it,
but because we are better people for it.
We’re better people when we recognize
our need for God and our need to worship.

Worshiping well makes us better people—
people who serve our neighbor better.
People who forgive more readily
because we know how much we are forgiven.

People who share more generously
because we know all we have comes from God.

People who work for justice in this world
because we know we will face God’s justice in the next.

So we want to worship well—
and the Mass is the supreme act of worship.
That’s why we want to do it as well as we can.

A busy Friday morning

2011-10-22T13:52:00.002-04:00

Friday proved to be an interesting...

Let me first back up: several weeks back, I told Father Hess, chaplain at Lehman High School, I'd be happy to offer Mass on a periodic Friday with the students, as before. One of those assigned Fridays was yesterday.

Then, on Monday, I got a call from a local funeral home; we arranged for a funeral...on Friday.

I was away from the office, on my day off, when I took the call.

Come Thursday, it dawns on me--around 2 pm--that I had a Mass at Lehman at 10 am, and a funeral, back in Piqua, 13 miles away--at 11 am.

Add to that, the retired priest who lives with me is ill. I was counting on him for the 8:45 am Mass.

I was at a convocation Thursday with the Archbishop and the priests of the archdiocese, no ability to make phones calls. The retired priest made some calls to retired priests...no luck.

I made calls, asked some of the priests at the convocation...they were all tied up (as I expected).

The retired priest felt up to taking the 8:45 am Mass. While he got ready for that, I got things ready for the funeral, as I would be racing back from Lehman and might not arrive back in a very timely basis.

I advised the principal at Lehman, when I arrived, of the situation; thankfully, this wasn't their first experience with this, so with a P.A. announcement, all the students were in their places (with bright, shiny faces), and we started Mass right at 10 am.

My homily was, almost exactly as follows:

No homily today, I'm sorry. I have a funeral at 11 am. This is why we ask you to pray for more priests. Men: step up and answer the call.

I don't believe we rushed, but we omitted the petitions (which are optional) and a post-communion song. When the servers and I got to the hallway, I took off my vestments and, still wearing my alb, hurried to my car and drove back to St. Mary's with 15 minutes to get ready for the funeral. That went well.

The rest of the day was the usual busy-ness.

Meanwhile, today, I was on the phone arranging--at the last minute--for a priest to cover a Mass tomorrow, in case the retired priest with me doesn't feel better; and another priest to cover his confessions this afternoon. I have Mass, at the other parish, when those confessions are scheduled. Our backup plan was a sign on the confessional.

When your pastor says he has to make changes in the Mass schedule, this is why. It's not because he hates offering Mass. It's because he knows how easily things like this can happen. (And thank heaven I didn't get caught speeding, or have a breakdown, racing down I-75.)

Oh, and did I mention? I'm coming down with a cold.

I hope my voice holds up, I have four Masses this weekend, plus two celebrations parishioners are hoping I will attend; I am marrying a couple at the evening Mass tonight, and receiving someone into the church on Sunday. My off day is Monday, but I have two talks to give, one of which I still have to write.

'Render unto Caesar...' and? (Sunday homily)

2011-10-17T11:43:00.002-04:00

Here are my recollections of my points from the weekend; I am sorry I did not find time during the prior week to write things out.

I began by pointing out that a line from this Gospel gets quoted frequently in conversation and political debate: "render unto Caesar"--and when that happens, it is often cited as if to say, Christians shouldn't be political because of what our Lord said; instead we should just keep quiet and leave politics alone.

However, that occurred at a time when there was no option for Jesus or anyone else to whom he was speaking having a role in politics. Had they organized a demonstration or a petition drive for a new Caesar, it wouldn't have ended well! We, however, do have this right--and we have a vote--and this is more than a right, it's a responsibility. In a sense, we are Caesar. What if our congressman never showed up to debate or vote? We'd find fault with that. So we should with ourselves if we don't take part in our government--and we bring our Christian values because that's part of who we are. I cited important votes on the ballot that we should be informed about that will affect our city and our state.

Then I mentioned the other part of the Lord's comments that get left out: "...and repay to God what belongs to God." The coin bore Caesar's image; what "coin" bears God's image? The human being. If we are to let Caesar have his taxes, then Caesar must keep hands off the human person. This is why we must speak up for defense of human life from conception to natural death; why we oppose abortion, baby-destroying stem-cell research, euthanasia; this is why we work to avoid the death penalty, and we are against torturing terrorists.

Then I called attention to the scene itself. From a human point of view, Jesus seems just a poor man--maybe he wore all the clothes he owned; maybe had a few coins, or none. Powerless--and they handed him the coin bearing the image of great Caesar, someone impressive, who was worshiped as a god. Of course, when you realize who Jesus really is, it's a comedy! Picture him beholding the coin, and asking, perhaps wryly, "oh--is this someone important? Who is this?"

Because, of course, the Lord had seen many Caesars come and go through the ages. The first reading recalls Cyrus--who, in his time, was a great emperor who is now forgotten. Many coins bearing many great figures have been placed in the Lord's hand over the ages, none of them matter in the long run.

Consider what that coin represents: money, wealth, things we work for, power, who's up and who's down...these things matter, but do they matter too much? Do we give them too much thought and concern? Meanwhile, we miss...the Hand that is outstretched. All those material things come and go, but His Hand remains. Perhaps we might take a moment to consider if some things dominate our concern...and instead reach out for that Hand.

Another weekend...

2011-10-10T16:20:00.003-04:00

Saturday wasn't too bad...

Pet blessing in the morning (every year near St. Francis Day); worked (fitfully) on homily till confessions at 3:30; Mass at 5 pm. Had to run over to other parish before confessions to take care of a few things, took a little longer. After Mass, retired priest who lives at rectory and I had dinner, something that happens rarely.

Sunday up for 7 am Mass; visited children in religious education classes at 9 am, presented Bibles to 6th graders. Mass at Noon; baptism after.

From 3-4:30 pm I was with junior high, giving them some information about the Bible. Back to St. Mary for evening Mass. After Mass, a distraught parishioner needed to talk about a problem, we could only speak a short time before I headed to the nursing home to visit a parishioner. Turns out the parishioner was sent to hospital, so I went there (after visiting other parishioners).

After that I had dinner around 8 pm. Around 9 I remembered I was going to try to stop in at another church in town for a tribute to a soldier who died in Iraq, but the call to the nursing home prevented that.

Sorry no text of homily. I developed some points but never wrote it out.

Briefly, my homily was about heaven. And I explored three points:

> Heaven is good--we don't know a lot about it, but it will be good. However, it may be good in a way we don't, at present, like (and not everyone wants it; note the folks who refused the wedding invitation); because we may have to give up other things for heaven. I compared how some say heaven sounds "boring" with those who say the same for Mass; and pointed out that if you view Mass in a worldly way, it is boring. But the true reality of Mass is anything but. What's more, I said, "let me tell you a secret: when you're at Mass, you're in heaven." And I explained that.

> Heaven is a gift--we don't earn it, we get invited. I said: "we don't go to heaven because we're good; we're good to the extent we're being influenced by heaven." Our spiritual life is the back-and-forth between heavenly influences and what we want that's not heavenly. If we allow it, heaven will draw us and make us ready for heaven. I touched on purgatory here.

> But we do have to get ready for heaven. I explained the fellow who lacked a wedding garment; it seems unfair to have him thrown out, but that detail serves as a warning for us: get ready; be ready in case you are summoned quickly.

The possibility of missing heaven and going to hell is real; or else so much in the Scriptures would be pointless. But God is working really hard to get us to heaven, so we have hope.

I said other things but that is a quick summary.

Today I had my day off, and I'm taking it easy. I saw "Moneyball" which was enjoyable but slow at the beginning. Too much navel-gazing.

What a priest's weekend looks like...

2011-10-03T16:28:00.002-04:00

Saturday:

9 am confessions; I was in the confessional till around 10:15 am.

Grabbed some breakfast on the way back to the rectory at the other parish. Made some phone calls after breakfast to take care of some parish business.

Watched a little football! Not often able to do that. But I'd gotten my homily finished earlier in the week.

Mass at 4 pm.

Retired priest and I went to dinner after Mass--he had a gift certificate a parishioner had given him. We had a chance to talk for first time in a week, even though we live in the same house.

This wasn't too bad a day; many Saturdays feature meetings with couples, more time on the phone, writing my homily, or other running around.

Sunday:

9 am Mass

Breakfast after Mass. Chance to pray the office.

Noon Mass

Quick lunch; joined Life Chain in Troy

Back to parish around 3:15-3:30, brief break before 5 pm Mass. (I prayed my office at the Life Chain.)

After 5 pm Mass, I thought (erroneously) I was finished for the day. Went to area restaurant for dinner.

Remembered I was supposed to join youth group; drove back, arrived a little late to happy faces all around.

Had dinner around 8:30 pm.

Finished for the evening? Not so: call from hospital around 12:30 am; back from hospital around 2 am.

Today's my day off; I only had two emails and phone calls regarding parish business.

'The fruit of the Kingdom is Justice' (Sunday homily)

2011-10-01T17:00:00.004-04:00

Let’s pick up on the last words we just heard:
What is the fruit of the Kingdom?

The first reading tells us: the fruit of the Kingdom,
the fruit God is looking for, is justice.

In Biblical terms, justice is about the good of the whole;
the good of the whole of each person,
and the good of society as a whole.

God’s definition of justice doesn’t fit our political system very well.

You have one group that will say, it’s all about economic justice.
They’ll pursue every avenue to shift the resources around.
The striking thing is, it’s all supposed to be for the poor;
and yet the poor somehow always stay poor.

But I also have to admit my own bias.
I can afford to be dispassionate about poverty,
When I’m warm and well fed.
It becomes a lot more urgent and real
when you don’t know where you’re sleeping tonight.

But there’s also a disconnect here.
We have some who are hard-chargers for economic justice,
but when it comes to passing laws to protect the unborn,
they’ll say, “that’s different.”
And it happens in reverse, too:
Folks who will work tirelessly for the unborn,
but economic justice? “That’s different!”

Whether or not you like the laws we have,
we do have laws regulating business and the economy.
And yet, somehow,
a law protecting the unborn is too much to ask?
We protect unborn fish and unborn birds—
but not unborn human beings!

Another way God’s justice doesn’t fit our categories
is when we draw lines: marking how far our concern will reach.
Parish lines, family lines, national boundaries.

Sometimes we draw a line between justice and compassion—
As if they can’t go together.
So when someone breaks the rules or breaks the law,
they no longer get compassion.

Case in point: our prison system.
We all know ugly things happen in prison.
When’s the last time you heard a politician
run for office promising to address it?

In God’s Vineyard, justice is not only the fruit God expects,
it’s also what’s needed to make for a good crop.

God knows his Vineyard can produce abundantly.
But the tenants somehow come up empty-handed.
There’s not enough.

If there is one truth both Scripture and experience confirms,
it is that scarcity is a result of human sin, not God’s failure to provide.

Our world has abundant food.
Here and in many countries, we throw away perfectly good food
just because it doesn’t look good enough.
We turn a lot of our food into fuel.
We have countries that can grow food, but don’t,
because of war and corruption.

And yet the claim keeps being made that there’s not enough,
And the solution is fewer people.

So our government has, for years,
used our tax money to distribute birth control worldwide.

Well, turns out the experts who pushed this message all these years,
are now changing their tune.
China, they now admit, will get old before it gets rich: too few children.

Europe, Japan, Russia are all facing the same problem.

We’re the stewards of the Vineyard.
And we’re the ones saying to God, there’s not enough.

Is this why our economy is a wreck? Our world is in crisis?
How badly we’ve mismanaged his Vineyard!

Instead of telling God—and each other—
the problem is his Vineyard,
we have to admit, whether as individuals or as a society,
that the problem is how we approach it.

Sometimes we measure “enough” by the wrong things.
I didn’t like my brother’s hand-me-downs as a boy—
but I had plenty of clothes.
We didn’t have a lot of extra food, but we had enough;
And when mom gave leftovers a French name,
that make all the difference.

These are hard times, and we can’t minimize that.
But I think a lot of us are rediscovering values we forgot about.
The “enough” we have may be a lot simpler.
Not cable or new things, but time with family and friends.

The gift of Faith; the gift of compassion.
These are things we never have a shortage of.

Homily 5: 'for you and for many'

2011-09-30T00:10:00.002-04:00

Next week, as you know, we begin using the new translation of the Mass.
Today I want to look at the one change that I know have a lot of people talking.
If it’s misunderstood, which will be easy to do, it will cause some concern.

In the Eucharistic Prayer, we are all familiar with the words the priest says,
when he holds the cup of wine:
“this is the cup of my blood—the blood of the new and everlasting covenant,
it will be shed for you…”

In the outgoing translation, it goes on to say, “…and for all.”
In the new translation, it says, “for you and for many.”

That certainly raises a lot of questions. There’s more going here, so let’s dig into it.

We have to go back to the Scriptures to understand this.
The fact is, this is what the Gospels tell us Jesus said at the Last Supper.

Here is what Matthew wrote, which we read on Palm Sunday:
“this is my blood of the covenant,
which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.’”
The Gospel of Mark has very similar words.

Now, some might ask, are the words in the Bible, in Greek, hard to translate?
Is the Latin of the Mass prayers ambiguous? They really aren’t.
And, for those who are interested in more detail on this,
I prepared a handout which is in the bulletin today.

But before we go any further, let’s stop and realize the reason
“many” sounds bad to us. It’s only because we’re contrasting it with “all.”

If at first I tell you, you get to have “all” the cookies—
but then I tell you, no, you get to have “many”—that sounds like a step down.

But take the word “all” out of the picture.
If the word “all” had never been used in the first place,
there’s no reason for “many” to sound bad to us.
Because the natural and logical counterpoint to “many” is what? How about “few”?

And that is the very question—regarding salvation—that comes up so often in Scripture!

At one point, the disciples asked: “Lord, will only a few people be saved?”
That was what everyone was asking: is salvation only for a handful?
Can only the rich be saved? Can only the Jews be saved? Is it only a few?

And the Lord’s words at the Last Supper are his rebuttal: “for many.”

Even so, the Lord could have said “all.” Why didn’t he?

First, while it is true that Jesus’s death is available for all people,
if they respond, that doesn’t mean all people are guaranteed heaven.

The Gospel we heard is pretty stark: if we don’t live as Jesus commands,
we risk being sent to the Lord’s left—with the goats.

We have no idea who or how many will, ultimately, be saved.
It’s certainly less challenging if we assume salvation is easy,
and everyone, or almost everyone, makes it.
That’s the downside of the translation we’ve been using.

In any case, whoever is saved, it won’t be “few”!
Many times the Lord makes clear
that they will come from “east and west, north and south.”
The “many” will be vast number;
the Book of Revelation says an uncountable multitude.

More than that, one of the things the Lord was mindful of
was the Old Testament passages that foresaw his coming as Messiah.
And none are more vivid
than what Isaiah said about God’s “servant,” “the just one,”
whose suffering and death “shall justify the many.”
This phrase appears several times in Isaiah’s prophecies.

In other words, not only did the Lord himself know the prophecies—
he realized his disciples knew them too.
He was extremely mindful, especially on Holy Thursday and Good Friday,
of how his actions would fulfill those passages.

Recall when Peter pulled out his sword, Jesus said,
“Put back your sword… Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father
and he will not provide me with more than twelve legions of angels?
But then how would the scriptures be fulfilled
which say that it must come to pass in this way?”

So at the Last Supper, the Lord was determined
that even his choice of words should fulfill the words of Isaiah.
Ever the Good Shepherd, Jesus wanted us not to have the least cause for doubt
that he is truly our Messiah!
As we say in the Creed: “in fulfillment of the Scriptures.”

This is our last weekend using the old translation.
When you come to Mass next weekend, you’ll hear it all the first time,
and we’ll all pray it together for the first time.
It will sound somewhat different, and for awhile, that’s what we’ll notice.
But it’s the same Mass.

Remember, the Lord said, “do this in remembrance of me.”
In the end, we are attempting, as best we can, to carry out the Mass faithfully.

Faithful to what the Church teaches us,
faithful to prayers that were handed down from the early Church,
faithful to the texts of the Bible,
and faithful even to Jesus’ own choice of words.

Sometimes—as in this case—we find the Lord’s words jarring.
But we don’t paper them over.
We recall just what he said, the way he said it.
If they make us ponder, so much the better.

(Here's the text of the handout I plan to distribute...)

Background on ‘for many’ in the Eucharistic Prayer

New Testament Passages from which the words of the Eucharistic Prayer are taken

The following are the New Testament passages from which the words we hear in the Eucharistic Prayer are drawn together; the first two include “many”:

Matthew 26:27-28:

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Mark 14:23-24:

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.”

Luke 22:20:

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.”

1st Corinthians 11:25:

In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Background on the Greek and Latin terms underlying the Matthew and Mark passages:

In Matthew 20 and 26, and in Mark 14, the Greek expression used is pollon—many. In Greek, there are multiple ways to say “for all.” Similarly, in Latin, “for all” would be pro omnes; the Latin text of the Eucharistic Prayer, before and after the Second Vatican Council, is pro multis, “many.”

Other Gospel references to “few” and “many”:

Luke 13:23-24, 29:

Someone asked him, “Lord, will only a few people be saved?” He answered them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough.
…
And people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. [I.e., there will be many in the Kingdom; but they won’t get there by avoiding the narrow way.]
Matthew 20:28:

Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Isaiah Chapters 52:13-15 and 53:11-12:

See, my servant shall prosper, he shall be raised high and greatly exalted. Even as many were amazed at him—so marred were his features, beyond that of mortals his appearance, beyond that of human beings—so shall he startle many nations, kings shall stand speechless; for those who have not been told shall see, those who have not heard shall ponder it.
…
My servant, the just one, shall justify the many, their iniquity he shall bear. Therefore I will give him his portion among the many, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, because he surrendered himself to death, was counted among the transgressors, bore the sins of many, and interceded for the transgressors.

Note on Aramaic vs. Greek vs. Latin

Scholars point out that in Aramaic, the term that translates “many” is ambiguous, and often was used to mean “all.” This is the reason the translators opted for “all” in the 1970 translation. They reasonably argue that Jesus and the others more likely conversed in Aramaic at the Last Supper, not Greek.

Yet the fact remains that the authors of Matthew and Mark had available in Greek many terms that could have been used to express “all,” yet they chose to use “many.”

We can’t read their minds, but there are several very good reasons for that decision:

1. The most obvious reason would be that Mark and Matthew are relaying accurately the sense of what Jesus actually said. Either they heard it themselves, or they were told by others who were present when he said it.
2. The most compelling rationale for “many” is that it makes the fulfillment of Scripture more emphatic. It lines up exactly with Isaiah’s description of God’s suffering servant (chapters 52 and 53), a passage that strongly foreshadows Jesus suffering and death. Whether Jesus was thinking about this himself—or whether the Gospel writer saw the connection—doesn’t matter, because either way the Gospels are inspired by the Holy Spirit.
3. “Many,” rightly understood, matches exactly what we believe about salvation. To say that “many” will be saved doesn’t exclude the possibility of everyone responding to God’s invitation; it is possible but not certain. On the other hand, “all” can be misunderstood as meaning Christ’s death guarantees everyone’s salvation.

Homily 3: The Creed

2011-09-30T00:02:00.000-04:00

Did you notice how the first reading talks about
Wisdom not just as a quality—but as if a person?

One of the things the Jewish people were thinking about,
just before Jesus came—when the Book of Wisdom was written--
was this idea that God’s truth is so powerful in the world
that the world can’t exist without God’s Wisdom holding it together.

Of course, when Jesus was born and he revealed to the Apostles
that God is a Trinity of Persons, this idea came to full flower.
So the Gospel of John tells us, Jesus is “the Word”—
the truth of God that spoke the universe into existence and holds it together.

What does that mean to us?

It means two things.

It means that the truth of who God is, and who we are in God, isn’t secret.
It’s been made known to us in Jesus Christ.

And more than that, our knowing God isn’t just knowing things about him,
but having a relationship with him: God dwells in us, in the Holy Spirit.

And the part of the Mass where we really delve into this Wisdom is the Creed.
Along with the rest of the Mass, it too has been newly translated.

Let’s turn to page 5 in those booklets, and take a look at some of the changes.

The first thing you’ll notice is we’ll now say “I believe,” not “we believe.”
Actually, both forms of the Creed come down to us
from the early Church. So why use “I”?

Well, because it emphasizes that while this Creed
isn’t just something we say together; it’s something each of us makes our own.

Then, scan down to where it says to bow.
Notice the wording changes to, “was incarnate of the Virgin Mary.”
This used to say, “was born of the Virgin Mary.”

Why this change?

Well, this more accurately expresses what we believe.

The old version says Jesus became flesh—became human—when he was born;
but this is incorrect. We celebrate his becoming human
nine months before Christmas, at the Annunciation in March,
when he was conceived. That’s when he “became man.”

Now, let’s focus on a change that folks have wondered about.
Scan up a four lines, and you’ll see the word, “consubstantial.”
That replaces “one in being.”

Some object it’s a hard word to understand; but that can’t be helped:
it’s describing a reality that’s just as hard to understand.

Now what I’m going to say here is kind of heavy. Please bear with me.
This is one of the most profound mysteries of our Faith,
so it’s supposed to be hard stuff.

This Creed was adopted by the Council of Nicea in AD 325.
They had a particular thing they wanted to say about God’s true nature.
They prayed and debated over key words—and this was one of them.
The thing is, what they were trying to say is just doggone hard to say.

So why isn’t “one in being” good enough?
The problem isn’t that it’s false, but that it’s not precise.
It’s not a stretch to imagine two people: friends, lovers, spouses—
describing themselves as “being one” or “one in being.”

Consubstantial means something much more specific than that.
It means that what the Father is—as God—the Son is too.
But not two “substances”; but only one.

It’s describing a reality that only applies to God.

So, for example, two spouses become “one”—
but they don’t cease to be individual human beings, individual human souls.
They aren’t one in the way that only God, himself, can be “one.”

The bishops at the Council—struggling for the right word—
were trying to say this: whatever God is, there’s only one;
and the Son is that one and same reality.

The issue, back then, was whether Jesus is God.
And even if you call Jesus “God,” what do you mean?
Is he sort of God? Is he a kind of junior God?
Even to this day, a lot folks take “Son of God” to mean
that Jesus may not be quite as much God as the Father is.

For example, without thinking about it, folks might say, “God and Jesus.”

With this Creed, they wanted to make as clear as a bell
that Jesus truly, really and totally is God.
What the Father is, as God, the Son is too.
One and the same—to the nth degree.

OK, so what’s that mean to us?

It has to do with what our eternal hope is.
Paul told us in the second reading,
the goal of our Faith is to be with Jesus forever.

If Jesus is not God—why is he our hope?

If he is only near God—that means that’s as close as we’ll ever come.

But here’s the truth the Creed tells us:
When we become one with Christ through baptism,
and we stay with Christ through our life,
and we go to be with him in eternity,
our destination isn’t somewhere in the “neighborhood” of God.
We’re not going to be in the cheap seats!

Our future “home address” is the heart of the Son—
which is also the one and same heart of the Father.

Another practical application: for everyone who wonders
why we Catholics make such a huge deal about the Eucharist: here it is.

Our “communion”—union with—is with Jesus himself.
And this Creed tells us, that is also union with God the Father.
Every time we are at Mass, we are challenged to ask ourselves:
am I ready for this? Have I fasted?
Do I believe what the Church teaches me? Do I live as a Catholic?
Have I confessed my sins?
Am I at peace with my neighbors?

Am I ready to say, “I believe?”

Homily 2: 'and with your Spirit'

2011-09-30T00:01:00.000-04:00

As you know, we’re doing a series of homilies on the new translation of the Mass.

If you pick up the red booklets in your pews,
we can take a look at one of the changes that everyone will notice—
and which we may stumble over at first.

It’s right on page 1. The priest says, “The Lord be with you”;
and the people respond: “And with your spirit.”

Why the change? Well, there’s a lot to this.

First, of course, this is straight from the Latin, which some of you remember:
Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo. “And with your spirit.”

OK, but why did they say this in Latin? It comes from the early church.

We aren’t sure where they got it;
however, it is a phrase that St. Paul uses several times in the New Testament.
For example, in his second letter to St. Timothy,
he said: “The Lord be with your spirit.”

We do know what they thought it meant.

St. John Chrysostom said this:

“If the Holy Spirit were not in this your common father and teacher,
you would not, just now, when he”—the priest—
“ascended this holy chair and wished you all peace,
have cried out with one accord, ‘And with your spirit.'”

In other words, what this is all about is God acting here:
the priest acknowledges the Lord in you;
and you acknowledge the Holy Spirit in the priest.

St. John makes the same point
when the priest approaches the altar—
you’ll see this on page 10.
At the altar, the priest sings or says, “the Lord be with you.”

Here’s what he said:
when the priest “stands at this holy altar to offer the sacrifice…
he does not touch that which lies on the altar
before wishing you the grace of our Lord,
and before you have replied to him, ‘And with your spirit.'”

And, then, on page 15,
the people and the priest exchange these words once more,
at the end of Mass, before the blessing.
The point is made again: when the priest gives the blessing,
it is Christ himself who blesses.*

This is part of what the Lord means when he says,
call no one father or master or teacher.
Now, let’s first explain what this is NOT about.

It’s not about whether a title is good or bad.
Jesus did not object to calling your teacher, “teacher”;
he didn’t object to calling your dad—or your priest—“father.”

No, the Lord is telling us not to focus on the human being;
and not to accept that focus.

Let’s look at one more change that goes along with this.

On page 9, right in the middle,
you’ll see what the priest says to you,
right after the bread and wine come to the altar.
The change is that the priest will say,
“my sacrifice and yours”—instead of “our” sacrifice.

Again, why the change?

It makes the point once more:
the priest approaches the altar not on his own steam,
but because he was ordained to be a priest for Christ and for you.

When the priest says, “my” sacrifice, it reflects this.
And because being a priest means
being united to Christ in a particular way,
it is Jesus himself who says, “my sacrifice.”

Then the priest says, “your” sacrifice.

It’s what our Lord told us about the Cross.
He took up the Cross in a unique way—
dying for us so we could live forever.
But then he says to us: “take up your cross.”
He invites us to bring all our troubles, our trials,
yes even things very unworthy—
but when we give them to him, he will make them of infinite value!

We often talk about “participation” in Mass,
but there is sometimes a misunderstanding.

Sometimes we talk as though what really counts
is whether we’re doing something:
singing, reading, bringing the gifts forward, and so forth.

As good as these things are,
they don’t determine whether people are truly “participating.”
Folks who sit silently—but intently—are surely participating too.
They may even be participating better than any of us. Who can say?

Because the key participation is right here in this prayer:
joining our hearts and lives—warts and all—in the sacrifice;
offering them as our personal sacrifice.

That moment of the Mass—which will happen shortly—
is an excellent time to do just that:
in prayer, lay on the altar all the cares and troubles,
all the people you pray for, all the sins that trip you up.
Don’t be afraid of offering anything as part of your sacrifice.
Jesus takes it all!

* I am indebted to Mike Aquilina's article, “‘And with Your Spirit’: The big difference in a little phrase,” June 1, 2011; I consulted it September 22, 2011.

Homily series on new translation

2011-09-29T12:31:00.002-04:00

Over the next few days, I'm going to post a series of five homilies on the new translation.

They are actually intended to be delivered, beginning October 23, through November 20, Christ the King.

I wrote them early because there will be four other priests, along with me, who will be taking Masses at my two parishes during that time, and I figured if I was going to ask them to go along with this, I owed them as much help as I could. FYI: this doesn't mean I asked or expect them to deliver these, exact, homilies; just that they could have these to work with.

So, since they are ready, I thought if I posted them now, there might be priests who would like to see them. Also, if someone sees something that is incorrect or unclear, I'll be happy to have a chance to fix it.

If you are reading this, but not a priest, you may want to mention this to any priests who you think will find it helpful.

'For you and for many'

2011-09-27T17:16:00.002-04:00

I was working today on two more homilies for my series on the new translation of the Mass, completing--just moments ago--my first draft for Homily 5, "For you and for many."

You realize this is a tease, right? You have to check back to see it?

While I'm tempted to publish it, I want to let this draft sit a bit, and return to it.

The truth is, this is a fairly deep subject, involving many passages of Scripture. It's not exactly easy to delve into that, in a Sunday homily, without losing people. (And dealing with "consubstantial" was even more interesting! That homily has gone through a lot of editing!)

So I'm going to hold off publishing it--wait just a bit more. I should be able to publish them by mid-October, when I am going to provide them to the priests who will be preaching at Masses here during October and November.

One more to write, for the First Sunday of Advent.

Oh, and I have to write a homily for this coming Sunday! D'oh!

Working on Mass translation homilies

2011-09-22T15:32:00.003-04:00

My day thus far...

Today I finalized one homily, for use next month, on the new translation of the Mass, and have completed a first draft for the next two; six are planned in total.

My first homily gives an overview and explains the principles guiding the translation.

The second discusses "and with your spirit" and how the Holy Spirit is active in the Mass.

The third discusses the Creed, and spends some time on "consubstantial."

When we get closer, I am going to post these early--which I otherwise never do.

In a moment, I'll head to the hospital for visits, then back for a meeting with one of the Pastoral Councils.

Jimmy Akin on the improved Mass translation

2011-09-20T10:13:00.000-04:00

What Catholics Believe about ‘Same-Sex Marriage’

2011-09-13T00:00:00.000-04:00

(This is a re-posting of something seen on this page a few weeks ago. After I published this, here, first, I revised this, with the help of reader comments, among others. I wasn't going to re-post it, except a staff member urged me to. This was actually distributed to parishioners the first weekend of September.)

Recently, the legislature and governor of New York changed the definition of marriage, to apply to people of the same sex. In recent years, this has been at issue in several states, and in many state courts—and it may come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Catholic Church opposes this redefinition of marriage. As a result, we’ve been criticized as against “progress” and even called bigots. Because this is so often cast as a question of “rights,” we may wonder why the Church teaches what she does.

Let me briefly explain what the Church teaches and why it matters.

First, a surprise: our stance is not based on religion; marriage existed before anyone wrote the first words of the Bible. Marriage arises from human nature itself. Human beings are designed to come together and make a family. This is part of being human and obviously necessary. Marriage is important to the well being of us all.

What’s the harm?

Still, many will say, “So what? Why not just change the law to accommodate the wishes of those who don’t fit this mold? What’s the harm in that?”

Here are four areas of concern:

1. This is a power-grab by government. This is a fundamental change in the whole of society being imposed by the government. To a great degree, we all must go along with it. We teach our children to respect the laws. Laws express the common values of society.

The Archbishop of New York asked a question we can all ask: Who gave the government the right to do this? Redefining marriage means redefining family and ultimately what it means to be human. This is social engineering.

2. This strikes at the peace and cohesion of society. A society isn’t just a collection of individuals, but a community with shared values. People often say, “we shouldn’t impose our values.” But there’s no avoiding it; this is what laws do—they reflect shared values and “impose” expectations on all of us.

What’s happening is new values are being imposed on all of us already. Consider…

> In 2004, the supreme court of Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex unions; a 2005 law changed how “family” was viewed by the state. The Catholic Church, long involved in adoptions, was told that if it deemed only a man and a woman as “family,” that would be illegal “discrimination.” The Church stopped referring for adoptions, rather than comply. Something similar has happened in Washington, D.C.

> In California, the state now mandates public schools teach “gay history” beginning in kindergarten. Where is this leading? What will this mean in practice? Will this affect textbooks or other programs made available to Catholic schools?

> In Canada, we might see a glimpse of our future. A Protestant pastor was charged with a “hate crime” in 2002 when he wrote a letter to the editor saying homosexual acts are sinful. After a lengthy court process, and much expense, he was finally cleared. This was not an isolated incident; it happened to the Catholic bishop of the Diocese of Calgary.

3. Marriage and family are not merely private matters—society rests on this foundation as surely as our homes rest on their foundations. Can anyone seriously argue it has been good for our society in recent years to have marriage become fragile, to have children grow up in broken homes, or grow up without both parents married at all?

4. This is reckless tampering. In recent years, we are better appreciating the importance of treating our ecology with respect. It is complex system which we don’t fully understand; but we are realizing better that polluting water and air, and not respecting the climate, wetlands, and endangered species can ultimately threaten our future.

And yet, politicians are re-engineering marriage and family. As Catholic writer Mark Shea observes, “what can it hurt?” will eventually be followed by, “how were we supposed to know?”

This raises a much broader question:

What does our Faith say about same-sex attraction?

We don’t fully know why some people (1-5% from various studies) experience this attraction. For some, it is a phase, for others it’s deep-seated. Some feel an exclusive attraction, but others don’t. Some try to change and do, but not all. Coming to grips with this at a young age can be very difficult. Some never share this, others are open about it.

Sadly, teasing, cruelty and rejection take a terrible toll. Some young people go through awful trials, and make rash decisions with life-long or even fatal consequences. A lot of folks have serious soul-searching to do about attitudes and behavior toward gay people.

The truth is, our family and friends who wrestle with these feelings ask the same questions we all ask: who am I? Why did God make me? How do I fit in his plan?

The answers—for everyone—are: We are made in God’s image. God made us to know, love and serve him in this life, to be happy with him in the next. We spend our lives discovering our particular vocation, but we are all part of his plan.

Did God make me this way?

Many say this same-sex attraction comes from God. But can we really say that?

People have all kinds of sexual feelings or desires. Will we say every one of them is likewise “God given”—simply because people experience them? Throughout history, faithfulness in marriage has always been a challenge; and people have seriously claimed that they can’t help being unfaithful. Is being unfaithful also “God-given”?

Whether we look at what nature tells us about human sexuality, or what Scripture and Christian tradition say, the answer is the same: that human sexuality is meant for a permanent union of a man and woman, with procreation an inseparable part of this union.

This is why our Faith has always taught that sex before and outside of marriage (including by oneself and porn), and marital acts involving contraception or sterilization, or which deliberately exclude procreation, are all gravely sinful.

Do I matter to God?

Maybe what we’re trying to say is something different: that whoever we are, God loves us. We have worth and dignity. That is true!

Nothing in our Faith allows us to demean or devalue anyone, for any reason. If we’ve ever treated anyone that way, that is a sin on our part. When we present our beliefs about the meaning of human sexuality and the call to chastity, this isn’t to be “anti” anyone.

As Christians, we believe two things that apply here: that human beings are broken and wounded, because of Original Sin; and that Christ, who died to save us, gives us grace to become new people. Having same-sex feelings is just one form of brokenness.

Facing our own brokenness, and bringing it to Christ, are essential to our salvation. Many people can say, “why did this happen to me?” Many people face life long struggles and shame. Christ accepts us where he finds us, but loves us too much to leave us there.

The virtue of chastity

Jesus said, “Take up your cross.” Why did he say it? Maybe because he knew there’s no other way to become truly human.

Our culture ridicules chastity. A lot of heterosexual folks, even Christians, do not embrace chastity themselves; so it seems unfair to ask it of those with same-sex desires.

So, a reminder: Christ calls everyone to chastity, not just some.

Married people are called to be chaste in their relations with each other and with others. This, along with the dying to self that comes in marriage and family, is costly.

Some heterosexuals find they can’t make marriage work. They either attempt it and it ends badly; or they never marry. They also find chastity hard.

And our Lord specifically called some to be chaste for his Kingdom—which is what brothers, sisters and priests do.

We might recall the words of G.K. Chesterton: “The Christian ideal hasn’t been tried and found wanting; it’s been found difficult and not tried.” No one can seriously claim our culture is too “pushy” about chastity and self-control. Just the opposite: what we experience from all sides is the celebration of not just lust, but greed, gluttony, materialism and anger.

Is this set of values working for our society? For families? For children?

We need the virtue of chastity so we can truly possess ourselves; in order to truly give ourselves fully to others. A society that scorns self-denial cannot say “no” and sacrifice for the future—which is at the heart of both our nation’s fiscal woes and health problems, is it not?

But chastity isn’t just about what you say “no” to; saying “no” to something that feels good, or really is good, means saying “yes” to a greater good. This is what soldiers do; what faithful spouses and parents do. It is what Jesus Christ did! It’s what each of us is called to do.

What is our Catholic answer?

To those who experience same-sex attraction, you are part of the Body of Christ. You are always welcome. Your priests will readily help with the sacraments and spiritual support. (See below for a link to Courage, a Catholic organization of those with same-sex attraction living their faith.) Every Catholic should be equally ready to provide true friendship and support. I’m here to help: call me to speak confidentially if you wish.

It has never been easy to answer Jesus’ call. In every age, some part of his message has always been rejected because it was too challenging.

When the prophet Habbakuk asked God why society was not listening to God’s words, the Lord said, “Write down the vision…the vision still has its time…wait for it.”
—Father Martin Fox, Pastor, St. Mary & St. Boniface Parishes, August 2011
References:

“Bishop Henry calls for overhaul of human rights commissions,” Catholic Civil Rights League, accessed July 28, 2011, online here; “Bishop Fred Henry's letter to the Premier of Alberta,” Catholic Education Resource Center, 2008, accessed here.

“California to Require Gay History in Schools,” New York Times, July 15, 2011, accessed here.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1602-1605; accessed here; paragraphs 2337-59, accessed here.

“Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions,” Boston Globe, March 11, 2006, accessed online at:
here.

Courage: Catholic Apostolate for those with same-sex here.

“Same-sex ‘marriage’ law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close adoption program,” Catholic News Agency, February 17, 2010; accessed here.

A cross was left standing (Sunday homily)

2011-09-10T18:00:00.000-04:00

When we think about the anniversary we mark this weekend--
that it falls on a particular Sunday--
and then there are readings, which come up every three years…
Were you struck by the so-called “coincidence” of these readings, on this weekend?

It’s not coincidence. It’s Divine Providence.

What did we hear?About anger and wrath,About the sinner who “hugs them tight”;
And about vengeance.About the choice of forgiveness--or refusing mercy.
And about God’s healing.

A group of people we didn’t know about hugged tight their wrath, and they attacked us.
Even though war and killing are as old as mankind,
Still that day changed us; we’ll never forget.

Our nation responded.

We all support our President--then and now--
When he has to take action to defend us.
And we have no words good enough for our fellow citizens, many in our families,
who answer the call, with some paying the ultimate price,to keep us safe.
Now--we have the right and the responsibility to defend ourselves.
That is not in question.
But let’s face it: we used what tools we have--we struck back, hard.
How is this going to end?

We all want to know God’s answer:why does evil happen?
Well, we know why.Because human beings chose sin.
It only takes one domino to fall--they all fall.

There are two answers to evil in the world--
yes, even for God, there are only two responses:
Coercion or conversion.God can force us, take away our freedom, and we’ll be good robots;
Or we can change.

And what our Lord was saying to Peter, what he says to us:
We can hit back--or we can forgive; we can be reconciled.

We can hit back; as a nation, we have the right.
But if all we use is our might,until we kill everyone who hates us,the cycle won’t end.

Reconciliation starts to look a little more practical.

When World War II ended, we had to be reconciled to our enemies.
Would we be better off if we hadn’t?

Is forgiveness hard? Oh yes; some of you know that better than I do.

What Peter couldn’t understand--and wouldn’t, until after Good Friday--
was that the Cross wasn’t just a really bad thing that happened to Jesus.
The Cross is every sin--in Peter’s case, every sin against him,
and every one he was guilty of.
But then start multiplying:
From Adam who failed his wife, Eve,
Cain, who killed his brother,
Right down through the ages.
All of it--the wars, the greed, the obscene cruelty,
slavery, violence and indifference:
That towering, festering pile of evilwas dumped on Jesus, on the Cross!

Jesus says, turn the other cheek? He turned his a billion times infinity.
He tells us, forgive seventy times seventy? He forgive infinity times forever.
What if he hadn’t? Where would any of us be?
Is there anyone who can walk into heaven by right?
Who doesn’t first have to stop at the Cross, to leave our sins?
That’s the price. To be forgiven, forgive.

In this time of war and terror,you and I as Christians have a role to play
our government, our nation, can’t take.
Our government is using the tools it has.
Those protecting us are doing their best.
But there’s something more.

Someone has to say to those who hate us, who choose death,
“In Jesus’ Name, we forgive!
Bin Laden and others chose to die, so they could destroy others.
Look at Jesus: here is your God! He chose to die, that he might save others.
To save you, bin Laden; to save you, al Qaeda. Jesus died for you.”

Remember that day? In the mangled steel of the twin towers, remember?
There was a cross left standing.A coincidence? No.
Amidst all the war and wrath,someone has to lift up the Cross to our world.

Latest...

2011-09-08T08:56:00.001-04:00

Sorry it's been pretty hectic.

Last weekend was extremely busy, between four Masses for the weekend, a funeral, preaching at a fifth Mass; then we had the Heritage Festival in Piqua and I helped out with the two parishes' booths on Monday. Then I came down with a nasty cold and was sick for two days, now I'm back to work.

Sorry for no homily for last weekend; my homily included a financial report for St. Mary Parish, and I think it's not appropriate for me to post those details online; not secret, but not the business of anyone outside the parish, I think.

Same thing this coming weekend regarding St. Boniface.

Offering our best (Sunday homily)

2011-08-27T18:00:00.001-04:00

As you know, our bishops, working with the pope,
have prepared a new English translation
of our Mass prayers.

Next weekend, our parishes will begin
using some of the newly translated prayers.
This is with the permission of the Archbishop. *

While we’ll start using all the prayers
at the end of November,
the Archbishop allowed for a few to be used
starting in September.

The three prayers we will begin using next weekend are:
the Gloria, the “Holy, Holy,”
and the new “Memorial Acclamations,”
which are the response when the priest says,
“Mystery of Faith.”

(At 7 am:
even though we don’t always sing these at this Mass,
we’ll still start reciting them so we get used to them.

In your pews, you’ll see this red booklet (hold up booklet).
Let’s look at it together.

This contains all the people’s prayers
that are the same week in, week out.

When Advent comes,
we’ll be using this booklet for the whole Mass;
but we’ll use it for these few prayers to start with.

Let’s take a look together, starting with the Sanctus,
on page 10: it changes only a little.

Instead of “Lord God of power and might,”
it will be “Lord God of hosts.”
You might wonder, why this change?

This is a phrase straight from Scripture.
“Hosts” means “armies”—but here it means
the heavenly hosts: God’s “armies” of angels.

One of the goals with the new translation
was to bring out more clearly the Scriptures
and Scriptural images being referred to.

On the next page (page 11), you can see the three choices
we will have for the Memorial Acclamation.
The first one looks new; but it is actually what was written,
in the new Mass right after the Council.

The reason it’s new to us is that it’s only now
being translated in a direct way.
Till now, what we were using at Mass were loose paraphrases of this.

So the bishops decided we should use this prayer,
and they also reworked two of the ones we’ve been using,
and they are dropping two others.

Now let’s look at the Gloria, back on page 3.
This changes a bit more, and it’s worth looking at
because it helps illustrate the reasons
the Mass needed to be translated anew.

If you look at this—keeping in mind
what we’ve been used to—you’ll notice right away
the new translation puts back in whole phrases
that were left out of the prior translation.

Remember, when the Mass was first translated into English,
right after the Second Vatican Council, they felt the need to move quickly.
Everyone then assumed the translation we’ve been using all this time
would be revised.
No one expected it to wait 40 years!

So, now we’ll be praying the Gloria more closely
with what it says in Latin—and in Spanish—
and in German—and so forth.

Not only that, this revised translation is now much more in line
with what Orthodox and Protestant Christians say when they use this prayer.
You can read more about it in the bulletin.
Now, let me explain two other things
about how we’re going to approach the new translation.

Starting at the end of October,
all the priests will take time, over several weeks,
to address the rest of the translation in their homilies.
We’ll be able to learn and appreciate the Mass better—
which is something a lot of folks want to do.

Also, starting next week, when we sing these prayers,
we’re going to use the simple, chant setting
that is contained in these books.
We are trying to “ramp up” and take this on
piece-by-piece, so it’s not overwhelming.

I do ask that you resist the temptation to “borrow”
one of these booklets. We’re counting on
these staying in church for at least the next year.

If you want a copy, please call the office
and we will happily sell you one for a dollar—
but we can’t have them disappear from the pews!

OK, we’ve been talking about the Mass.

Did you notice, in the second reading,
Saint Paul talks about the importance
of our “spiritual worship”—
and offering our bodies as a “living sacrifice”?
What he is saying is that how we live our daily lives
is a mirror of what we do in our worship together.

On Sunday, we all join the priest in offering
the Sacrifice of Christ—the Mass, the Eucharist.
The rest of the time, we’re spread out, in our community,
being a bearer of Christ to others.

If we came to church today,
and found the tabernacle was gone;
or if we found out there was no Mass;
how would we react?
We’d be broken hearted: we’d ask, where is the Lord?

We come here to meet Christ here;
This parish, each of us, is like a living tabernacle,
so that people know Jesus is with them.

The Mass is the sacrifice the Church offers,
acting as one;
our day-to-day life is the “living sacrifice”
each of us offers as individuals.

In the Mass, Jesus gives us everything,
including his true Body and Blood.
Paul says, we give exactly the same back in return!
We give our body and blood, our lives, our soul,
our choices and decisions, to Christ.

Oh but it’s hard!

What would change, if we truly gave Jesus our tongue?

If these eyes belong to Christ,
would we go all the same places online?

Giving Christ our hands, our feet might mean
we spend more time helping others or spreading Faith.

But this gives a good way to pray:
At this Mass—or later—
we might think about the gifts and talents we have,
in our bodies, in our minds and selves, and asking:
Christ, these are yours.
How shall they serve you today?

* I didn't think it was important, in my homily, to go into the following detailed explanation.

Archbishop Schnurr has given every parish permission to begin using these prayer texts starting September 10-11. I asked, and received, his permission to start a week earlier, because we are doing a series of talks at Mass, at one parish, regarding stewardship, and I wanted to address this subject, in a homily, before beginning to use these new prayers. The opportune time for that was this weekend, not next; and I thought it would be better if the weekend we started using these texts followed right after that homily.

The Church, the lonely prophet (Sunday homily)

2011-08-20T17:00:00.000-04:00

In today’s Gospel the Apostles face a choice:
Play it safe; or a make a commitment
that changes everything.

When the Lord asks an easy question:
“What are folks saying about me?”
They all offer the safe answer: “a prophet.”

Then, Jesus puts them on the spot:
“And who do you say that I am?”

They all fall silent. Waiting for someone else to answer.
Simon steps out alone:
“You are the Anointed One: the Son of the Living God.”

Even early in life—when we’re kids in school—
we face the choice of melting into the crowd,
or standing up and standing out, for what is right.

It’s not fair that others hang back,
waiting for us—but that’s life.
That gnawing in your stomach? That’s normal.
That voice that tells you to speak up?
That’s your conscience.

And however hard it is to do,
what feels even worse is the regret
that comes from knowing what you should have done,
but didn’t find the nerve to do.
Simon commits himself.
That’s when Jesus says: “You are Peter—you are Rock—
And upon this Rock I will build my Church.”
Jesus makes a promise here:
The Rock will stand, the Church will stand; and she has.

Peter was not super-human. Remember his story.
He was a fisherman; he was part of a small business
with his brother Andrew, as well as James and John,
who all joined him in following Jesus.

Peter had a wife and likely had children.
So, like a lot of us, he had a lot to lose.

One of the things this brings up
is what this passage tells us about the Church.

We believe that Christ has promised
the Church would stand firm till the end.
We believe Christ protects the Church,
in a supernatural way, from teaching error.
When we talk about the pope,
or a council of the whole church,
being “infallible,” this is what we mean.

The first reading helps us understand why.
God’s People were in trouble;
God empowers a new leader,
to be a “peg in a sure spot”; a father to Jerusalem.
The pope is our “holy father,”
But not for his sake; for our sake.

To say the Church, the pope, are “infallible”
has to be understood correctly.
It doesn’t mean he knows who will win the World Series.

It doesn’t even mean he knows the answer to every question
about God, or Jesus, someone could ask.

But it does mean this:
on those special occasions when the Church as a whole,
or the pope acting for the Church,
gives formal teaching about God, about right and wrong,
then God acts to prevent the Church, or the pope,
from including error in that teaching.

Now, if you want, you will find popes
whose lives were far from admirable.
And you don’t have to look long for a story
that claims the Church messed up on this or that matter.

First, I’d say, don’t believe all you hear.
The facts are often otherwise.
But ultimately, all anyone ends up “proving”
is what we already knew:
that Christ built his Church not from angels,
but from sinful people.

As important as the popes are as leaders,
Christ has kept his promise through more than popes.

We’ve had bold popes; but sometimes they need help:
Here comes St. Catherine of Siena!
Here comes a Little Flower, a St. Francis, a St. Benedict;
Jesus has kept his promise!

Again, it’s not surprising that too often,
too many in the Church—including ordinary folks like us—
were willing to melt into the crowd,
rather than speak up and be alone.

But what we ought to notice is how often,
how constantly, the Church has done what Peter did:
speak up, even when all alone.

You may have heard the claim
that the Church approved of slavery. That’s false.
What’s true is that the Church was often alone
in condemning it; and wasn’t listened to.

You’ve heard the charge that the Church
didn’t do much to oppose Nazism. Again, that is false.

What’s true is that the Church
condemned anti-semitism and fascism.
No less than the New York Times called Pope Pius XII
“a lonely voice” in the darkness.
The Church took great risks in hiding Jews
and others from the Holocaust,
and saved more than anyone other than the Allied armies.

That has often been our role; to be the lonely voice,
the prophet who speaks up to defending human dignity—
and when we do, we are attacked as opposing “progress.”

Pope Paul VI was very alone when he said contraception
wasn’t going to work out very well for society.
When abortion spread—as Pope Paul foresaw—
The Church was often alone in opposing that.

Lately, we are told that research
that destroys tiny, unborn children is justified,
once again, as necessary for “human progress”!

Nevermind that it’s not true.
Research that does not take life
is actually working better.

Everybody likes a prophet we agree with;
We can’t stand a prophet who says we’re wrong.
But that’s exactly when we need the prophet, isn’t it?

What do you want to hear?

2011-08-17T12:38:00.003-04:00

Sounds crazy, right? It's August, yet I'm writing homilies for two months from now!

Not so crazy, actually; I'm looking ahead to a series of homilies the other priests and I will give in the weeks leading up to the first Sunday of Advent, when we begin using the new and improved translation of the Mass.

I wanted to look at the readings assigned for those Sundays, as well as look at the more notable changes in the translation of the Mass, and think about the best way--over five or six weeks--to touch on each of these things. I was looking for possible connections and themes, for ways to organize the material, and--I hope--make it more appealing than a mere laundry list.

I've only begun, so more work is needed to flesh things out.

Here is a question for you--and your answers may help me develop these homilies:

What questions or issues would you want to hear addressed about the improved translation of the Mass? Is there anything else about the Mass you'd like to hear explained?

My Experimental 'Spirit of Vatican II' Liturgy

2011-08-15T20:34:00.003-04:00

Tonight, I did an experiment with the liturgy, in the (true) spirit of Vatican II.

For the Solemnity of the Assumption, we had the schola present; we chanted the introit--in English--as well as the offertory and communion. In fact, the only hymn we sang was the Salve Regina at the conclusion.

We did use some Latin and Greek: Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei.

I chanted the Gospel, the Roman Canon and a lot else.

Oh--and I offered the Mass toward the Lord.

Before Mass, I explained what I was going to do; and then I elaborated on it during my homily.

I chose this occasion because it was not an obligatory Mass, and I'd warned in the bulletin there'd be lots of incense and chant, so I figured that would be something of a clue.

But I didn't decide, until 15 minutes before, to go ahead with ad orientem.

I let folks know they didn't have to like it, but they might; I invited them to let me know what they thought about it. (A few gave comments and those where positive ones.)

In my homily, I explained how Pope Benedict has prompted this reconsideration of ad orientem, I attempted to explain how, after Vatican II, some things were given so much emphasis that other important aspects of the liturgy were obscured, and I explained how the priest needs to decrease, so that Christ may increase. I explained that I wasn't planning on doing this all the time, just now and then.

We had about 40 folks present.

Now I'm having some dinner.

Update (ca. 11:55 pm)...

Well, I had my dinner, and had some time to think about the Mass tonight, so now I can share some further thoughts about offering Mass ad orientem. (Welcome Fr. Z readers!)

It's not the first time I've done it; but I haven't offered Mass ad orientem in the parish many times other than privately. I was a little nervous, because I thought, is someone going to get upset about this? Really upset? And it didn't help that I am getting over a cold and developed a bit of a cough as I'm finishing the Canon (singing it); it was really hard finishing the Per Ipsum.

The servers, including several adults, in cassock and surplice, were excellent. The three boys were all brothers, sons of the music director. The schola was excellent. The acoustics in Saint Boniface--now that the carpeting is gone--are excellent. The one downside of ad orientem was I couldn't see the clouds of incense I know the servers were offering behind me, during the elevations.

I might also add, that having a procession carried out well is very edifying.

I am sorry I forgot my biretta, but--it is just as well. It was probably better I didn't wear it; as well, that I didn't use the Roman Canon in Latin, as I was going to do initially. Why do I say that?

Because, as it was, it should have been clear we were offering the newer form of the Mass, not the extraordinary form. Had I used a biretta, and used Latin, it might have been less clear.

Finally, I have to tell you, there is something tremendously powerful, for the priest, in offering Mass toward the Lord. For one, the architecture of the church makes so much more sense. As I offered the Sacrifice, I was aware of the beautiful sanctuary lamp over my head, I was gazing at the massive crucifix ahead of all of us, and above that, the Good Shepherd window in the apse. The light from the evening sun poured in through the windows, a dappled gold light.

I knew everyone was behind me, but--I was there alone; but not alone, with the Lord.

A couple of curious things happened, none of which I orchestrated. The servers were all kneeling behind me, at the top step of the altar, as I made my communion; they remained kneeling for communion.

Then, when I went down to distribute the Eucharist to the faithful, it seemed a lot of folks received on the tongue--more than usual. And there seemed a tremendous sense of awe among all who came forward. It's hard to know if that's actually what others felt, unless folks present say so, or just my perception.